ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Restorative Justice

Nicky Morgan: What plans he has for the use of restorative justice to reduce the level of offending; and if he will make a statement.

Crispin Blunt: We are committed to increasing the use of restorative justice throughout the criminal justice system. Restorative justice should play a part in activities ranging from informal disposals administered by front-line police officers to enabling serious offenders to face up to the consequences of their actions. There is growing evidence of its potential to cut reoffending and crime, and to enhance the role of victims in the delivery of justice.

Nicky Morgan: Charnwood council’s reducing reoffending scrutiny panel has been considering how to promote restorative justice locally. One of the problems that it has identified is that offenders are often released on Fridays or at weekends with no practical support. Before it can get around to worrying about restorative justice, we need to know what the Ministry can do to ensure that offenders are given the practical support that they need when they join the community.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend has raised a valid operational concern about Friday releases. However, holding prisoners whose statutory release date falls at a weekend until the following week is unlawful, and we do not think it right for prisoners to be let out early: they should serve the custodial period required by law. Our duty is to manage the operational issue of Friday releases. That includes ensuring that all prisoners are properly prepared for release, and implementing restorative justice as part of that preparation where appropriate.

Gloria De Piero: My constituent Gary Thrall was left for dead after a vicious knife attack last year. His first contact from Victim Support came five weeks later, when it was suggested that he might like to meet some knife attackers. Does the Minister agree that that is a gross misuse of restorative justice, and what can he do to ensure that the same thing does not happen to other people?

Crispin Blunt: I read about that case in the papers. It is plainly important for restorative justice to carry the confidence of victims. They should not be placed in a position in which they are required to take part in restorative justice disposals; restorative justice should be a right for them to exercise when they see fit, and when it is clearly in their interests to do so.

Alan Beith: Is the Minister aware that many victims greatly value the restorative justice process, because it brings the person who has caused them harm face to face with the harm that he has caused? Does the Minister recognise the need for it to be mainstreamed into the system rather more than it is at present? There are many areas in which it is currently not available to benches and courts.

Crispin Blunt: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important to bear in mind that restorative justice is a right for victims. I believe that if, in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), a victim wished to exercise the right to engage in restorative justice and to demand an account from an offender who was pleading guilty or had been found guilty, he or she should have the opportunity to do so. The victim impact statement, as part of the restorative justice process for the benefit of the victim, must become a much clearer element of our justice system.

Helen Goodman: I agree with the Minister that restorative justice can be a positive intervention, and I was pleased to be able to attend a restorative justice session in Wormwood Scrubs organised by volunteers from the Prison Fellowship on 28 March. Unfortunately, however, it was the last such session to take place in a prison in the London region. Can the Minister explain why that is, given that it is agreed that restorative justice can be an effective intervention? Is this yet another example of the gap between rhetoric and reality?

Crispin Blunt: No, it is not. The hon. lady is referring to a decision by the management of London prisons, which are principally local prisons, to focus on short-term offenders who are incarcerated in London as well as in local prisons supporting the courts. We are going to change the system so that restorative justice is embedded in the criminal justice process from beginning to end. The hon. Lady supported her party for a very long time in trying to get that done. I assure her that we shall absolutely deliver it.

Injunctions (Privacy)

John Whittingdale: If he will estimate the number of existing injunctions granted on the grounds of invasion of privacy.

Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice currently holds some limited data on the numbers of injunctions applied for in the county courts, but they do not allow identification of anonymity injunctions. The Department’s chief statistician is currently considering how robust data on the number of anonymity injunctions issued by the courts might be collated in the future.

John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned about the possibility that the large number of injunctions that appear to be being granted on a routine basis suggests that the courts are paying insufficient regard to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which was intended to protect press freedom? Given that, and given the huge speculation on the internet
	about the identities of those who have obtained injunctions, does he feel that the time is approaching when Parliament may need to revisit the issue?

Kenneth Clarke: I do not think any of us know whether the number is increasing. As far as I am aware, there have been two super-injunctions since the John Terry case, but the word “super-injunction” gets used very widely. I realise there is increasing concern, however. I personally have strong views on the secrecy of justice. We have a tradition of open justice in this country. Plainly, I believe in the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in this country, even when it is sometimes exercised provocatively, as it is supposed to be in a free country, but there are also areas where an individual is entitled to have their privacy protected. The time is certainly coming when the Government are going to have to look at this matter, although we will probably wait until we have had the report of the Master of the Rolls, who is looking rather more closely at the procedural aspects.

Sadiq Khan: The Lord Chancellor is right to remind us that it is important that we get the balance right between freedom of speech and an individual’s right to privacy, but he will be aware of the public disquiet about the use of the anonymity injunction or super-injunction, both in terms of its abuse—or alleged abuse—and its circumvention, for example by the use of Twitter. As he has said, the current situation is not satisfactory, but the Master of the Rolls is simply looking at the process, rather than the substance. What does the Lord Chancellor intend to do about that, so as to provide leadership on this issue?

Kenneth Clarke: First, I agree that the Master of the Rolls is looking at process, and I am sure what he says will be very valuable. As I have said, we will wait until he reports back before starting to take a proper look at the issue, but I think the Government will now have to study it and decide whether there is a case for intervening. There will never be unanimity on all these judgments, precisely because it is so difficult to balance the competing parts of the convention on human rights and the competing interests involved. There have been cases where we have certainly needed to know—such as where people are disposing of waste material by dumping it off the coast of Africa. That is easy in one direction, but in the other, every time I watch a football team I do not think I necessarily need to know about the sex life of each of the players.

Sadiq Khan: As is often the case, I find myself agreeing to a large extent with what the Lord Chancellor says, but let me say this. Super-injunctions are not granted by European judges using European law; they are granted by British judges using British law, and Parliament has supremacy over that law and those judges. If clarity and guidance is required and suitable, and bearing in mind the fact that we have the draft Defamation Bill and the forthcoming justice Bill, why does he not just say that he will use those vehicles to provide clarity and guidance?

Kenneth Clarke: We will consider these matters, and it is probably right that Parliament passing a privacy Act might well be the best way of resolving the issue, but we need to get somewhat nearer a consensus and to know
	exactly how we are trying to strike the balance before something is submitted for the judgment of Parliament. We may well not have to wait until the end of a long, controversial process such as that, and instead find some other way of tackling the issue, but we are considering it and we will come back with proposals in due course. If there were debate on a privacy Bill, there would be an interesting range of opinions even in Parliament, but I have not met many people yet who seem to have the perfect answer as to how to get the balance right.

John Hemming: Some of these injunctions serve to prevent information from being passed to the police or other regulators. Does the Secretary of State believe the law should be changed so that regulators can always have information passed to them?

Kenneth Clarke: That is one of the arguments which the judge who decides whether to grant the injunction will no doubt have in mind. Whether it is reasonable and in the public interest for the injunction to be granted is what the judge is meant to try to establish. The question for us is how we can make that clearer and more defensible, and how we can know more about what is happening so that we are all satisfied that injunctions are granted only in cases where the right to privacy of the individual is, indeed, being interfered with unjustly, but I know of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this topic, and we will bear his views in mind—

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer.

ECHR Jurisdiction

William Bain: What reforms he is pursuing of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

Kenneth Clarke: I will try not to talk this one out, Mr Speaker—although I will be tempted to do so.
	Reform of the Court will be a key aim of the forthcoming UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe. We will be pressing in particular to reinforce the idea that the Court’s role is a subsidiary one, which means that states, not the Court, have primary responsibility for protecting convention rights.

William Bain: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In supporting reforms that cut the backlog of cases and reduce the delays that many people experience in the Strasbourg Court, does he agree with Amnesty International and 270 other non-governmental organisations which have founded a petition to campaign against the introduction of fees in the European Court of Human Rights, as they believe those could, in some cases, represent an insurmountable barrier to justice?

Kenneth Clarke: I certainly think that one of the things that needs to be tackled and can be tackled without too much difficulty is the thousands upon thousands of cases awaiting a hearing at the Court, many of which are completely outside the sphere of the convention and could be disposed of reasonably straightforwardly. The question of fees will have to be decided in due course by
	the Ministers of 47 member states of the Council of Europe, but there is not much evidence at the moment that people are feeling excluded from the jurisdiction by the threat of any imminent costs.

Stephen Phillips: There would be very little problem with the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court if we repealed the Human Rights Act 1998, withdrew from the convention and replaced it with a British Bill of Rights. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is about time that that happened?

Kenneth Clarke: If we repealed the Human Rights Act, which is one of the matters being looked at, we would just go back to having the convention applied directly by Strasbourg. The issue attracts a wide range of views, which is why we have set up a commission to consider them—[Interruption.] We have indeed set up the commission. It is composed of serious people who have expressed a very wide range of views in the past on the subject. They will strive to reach a consensus and it will be useful to get a properly informed and expert assessment of what the various options might result in. I am sure that the package of measures recommended by my hon. and learned Friend is one of the matters they will be considering in the course of their discussions.

Sentencing

Stephen McCabe: When he plans to bring forward proposals on the future of sentencing.

Crispin Blunt: In December 2010, the Government set out proposals for more effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders in the “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper. We are finalising our response to the views expressed during the consultation and will publish it shortly. That will be followed by the publication of the legislation required to implement our proposals.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful for that answer. Is it the Government’s view that someone who breaks into a person’s house and threatens violence should automatically receive a prison sentence, irrespective of whether it is a first offence?

Crispin Blunt: It is the Government’s view that justice should be done, and that is best done by judges taking into consideration the circumstances of every individual case. There will be circumstances in which Parliament has made clear its views in legislation. As a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, the hon. Gentleman will well understand that. He will also well understand the potential for miscarriages of justice if this place chooses so to tie the hands of judges that they are not able to exercise justice in the individual cases that come before them.

Robert Buckland: There are a lot of noises off about this Government’s sentencing policy, but is not the reality that the simple aim of that policy is to reduce reoffending and to protect the public, and that nothing more need be said?

Crispin Blunt: Yes.

Jack Straw: At present, a defendant entering an early guilty plea will earn up to a third off the sentence that would otherwise apply. The Government are proposing to replace that with a discount of a half, a move which is opposed by the judiciary and many others. How on earth will giving a half off a sentence help to protect the public?

Crispin Blunt: I would have thought that a moment’s reflection would make that clear. Let us suppose that someone who is accused of rape co-operates with the authorities at the first opportunity, rather than puts their victim through the entire process of having to be prepared to give evidence and then having to give evidence. That is one example where there is a definitive benefit to the victim from encouraging the earliest possible guilty plea.

Helen Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that short-term prison sentences for women are quite ineffective and that robust community options would be much better?

Crispin Blunt: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary made clear last year, there are of course problems with short prison sentences for both male and female offenders. We will not take away from the judiciary and magistracy the ability to use short sentences when required, but we need to ensure that community sentences that are properly robust and properly punitive can carry public confidence as an appropriate option, particularly for women offenders who frequently have wider responsibilities in the community that would be lost if they were incarcerated.

Prisoners (Foreign Nationals)

Nick Smith: How many foreign national prisoners he expects to return to their country of origin to serve their sentences in 2011-12.

David Hanson: How many foreign national prisoners he expects to return to their country of origin to serve their sentences in 2011-12.

Crispin Blunt: In 2010, 5,235 foreign national prisoners were removed or deported from the UK. The number of foreign national prisoners has reduced by 622 since 31 March 2010 to the present figure of 10,745. The number of foreign prisoners transferred through prisoner transfer arrangements remains regrettably low due to the voluntary nature of most of our existing arrangements. We expect about 60 prisoners to be transferred in 2011-12 to serve their sentence and for the number of transfers to rise progressively as the European Union prisoner transfer agreement enters into force.

Nick Smith: The Prime Minister vowed to repatriate thousands of foreign prisoners. How many foreign national prisoners have been repatriated in the past six months and how many does the Minister expect to repatriate in the coming 12 months?

Crispin Blunt: I just told the House that in 2010 we repatriated 5,235. I would imagine that we will repatriate a similar or larger number next year.

David Hanson: On 2 June, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), the Prime Minister said:
	“I have asked the Home Secretary to work with the Foreign Secretary to draw up agreements with as many countries as possible”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 434.]
	Will the Minister update us on which new countries he has drawn up agreements with in the 11 months succeeding that date, what agreements have been finalised and, while he is at it, whether three and a half years after I began negotiations we finally have an agreement with Nigeria on repatriation?

Crispin Blunt: I regret to inform the right hon. Gentleman that we are still waiting for the Nigerians to complete their legislative processes, but that is in process and I am delighted to report to him that we have every expectation that it will be brought to a conclusion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we do not control both sides of a negotiation and we have to ensure that we have partner countries that will agree to compulsory transfer. He, of all people in this House, is well aware of how difficult that is. That does not mean that we will not try to improve on the dreadful performance of the previous Administration.

Legal Aid Reform

Jessica Morden: When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.

Chris Evans: When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.

Rosie Cooper: When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.

Liz Kendall: When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.

Julie Elliott: When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the reform of legal aid.

Jonathan Djanogly: We intend to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows.

Jessica Morden: A host of organisations, including Citizens Advice, the Law Society and the Select Committee on Justice, have criticised the lack of an evidential basis for the proposed legal aid changes and have asked the Government to slow down and think again. Will the Minister be willing to act on their advice?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Lady’s question implies that the Government have not been listening. I would say that that is not the case. The consultation elicited some 5,000 responses, we have now had three Adjournment
	debates on legal aid reform, hundreds of questions have been tabled and I have been engaging in debates, sometimes with shadow Ministers, outside this place. I would say that the Government have been doing a lot of listening on the issue and we will be ready for legislation shortly.

Chris Evans: Solicitors have complained to me that the proposals could turn Islwyn into a legal aid desert. What estimate has been made of the number of practitioners who would stop legal aid work if the reforms were made?

Jonathan Djanogly: The Government’s position is not to start off with the number of legal aid practitioners. Our starting point is the sort of legal aid system that we should have in this country, which will support vulnerable people. The number of practitioners to service that will follow.

Rosie Cooper: Does the Minister believe that there is anything to learn from the Secretaries of State who have been dealing with forestry and health when it comes to rushing through proposals that have been rejected by professionals, the public and coalition Members of both Houses?

Jonathan Djanogly: I think that I answered that question previously. I certainly believe that we have listened and engaged fully.

Liz Kendall: The Minister has just said that he wants his plans to protect the most vulnerable, but his own impact assessment says that low-income families, women and minority ethnic groups will be disproportionately affected. Can he explain how that is fair?

Jonathan Djanogly: Legal aid per se involves poor people, so if we are going to reduce costs it will impact on poor people. It is true that individuals with protected equality characteristics are over-represented within the current client base of civil and family legal aid when compared with the population as a whole, although the extent of that varies by category of law.

Julie Elliott: Will the Minister be taking the advice of the Select Committee on Justice, which recommended that the Government should assess the
	“merits of the cost-saving proposals put forward by the Law Society”,
	namely the alternative savings of £384 million—£34 million more than the Government’s proposals would save—while protecting all civil and family legal representation?

Jonathan Djanogly: Various alternatives have been suggested by the institution that the hon. Lady mentions and by many others during the consultation. The question is whether they would work and whether they would deliver the required savings within the spending review period. The main proposal of the Law Society, which she mentioned, is an alcohol levy—a penny on your pint to pay for lawyers.

Duncan Hames: I am glad that the Minister is actively listening on this issue—[ Interruption. ]We will see, won’t we? Under his proposals, someone with a debt case who faces homelessness will
	be eligible for legal aid, so why should someone facing homelessness in a case of unlawful eviction not also be eligible?

Jonathan Djanogly: Those are the sorts of issues that we have been considering very carefully through the consultation process. It is very important to realise that even after our reforms we will still be spending £40 million on housing legal aid, for example, and £6 million with debt, so it would be wrong to say that we are abolishing those areas of law. We are looking to get better value and to make sure that the money goes towards helping the vulnerable.

Tom Brake: The Minister will have noted a great degree of consistency in the submissions on the proposed changes to legal aid, with concerns expressed about family law, debt and housing law, medical negligence and cost-shunting on to other Departments. He has confirmed that the consultation on legal aid has been a genuine listening exercise. Can he confirm that many of the points expressed by organisations such as the Law Society and the CAB have been heard and, critically, will be acted on?

Jonathan Djanogly: All of the submissions have been heard and are being considered very carefully—I can assure my hon. Friend of that. As for whether we put them all into place—that is unlikely, but we will consider them all and where we need to change our proposals, changes will be made.

Karl McCartney: I recently met Langleys Solicitors, a firm based in my constituency, which feels that the recommendations about reductions in the provision of legal aid combined with the recommendations from Lord Jackson’s report on civil court reforms will seriously undermine access to justice and the rule of law. What assurances can my hon. Friend give to Langleys, my constituents and me that the Government’s reforms will not make it more difficult for ordinary people to have recourse to the courts to right wrongs?

Jonathan Djanogly: I have to be up front with my hon. Friend and say that less money will be spent on legal aid, which means that fewer people will have access to legal aid. The important issue is that we direct scarce resources to the most vulnerable, and that is exactly what we will be doing by prioritising those whose security and liberty is at risk and those whose homes are at risk of immediate repossession.

Julian Huppert: I was fortunate to secure a debate on legal aid last week in which I and others had the opportunity to go through some detailed concerns. Sadly, the Minister ran out of time in which to respond; I trust that he will respond to us all in writing. He implied then that there would be changes to the original proposals. Can he confirm that now, and what will they be?

Jonathan Djanogly: I can confirm that a letter has been sent to my hon. Friend, so he should get it shortly. As I said in the Adjournment debate, which helpfully enabled hon. Members to put their points across, issues that were raised then are being looked at carefully by the Government. We will assess those and some of them may have implications for our legislation in due course.

Andy Slaughter: The Secretary of State has accepted Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on civil litigation reform. He said they were “very attractive” and he was “impressed” by them, so why is the Minister ignoring the report’s recommendation that the Government make
	“no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility”
	because
	“The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate costs”?

Jonathan Djanogly: Legal aid does play a very important part in access to justice, which the Government support. Lord Justice Jackson was looking at civil costs, and in that context he looked at legal aid. On that point, as in various other instances, we did not agree with his recommendations. What we will put forward in legislation is a total all-encompassing package. The shadow Minister will appreciate that we consulted on public and private funding at the same time so that those who wanted to respond could do so in the context of both.

Work Opportunities (Prisons)

Tony Baldry: What steps he is taking to promote work opportunities in prisons.

Kenneth Clarke: We have made clear our intention to make prisons places of work and industry. In the Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, published last December, we set out our proposals to break the destructive cycle of crime. That included proposals for prison work. Our response to the consultation on the Green Paper will be published soon.

Tony Baldry: Can my right hon. and learned Friend kindly tell me how many more work and training opportunities there are in prisons today than there were this time last year?

Kenneth Clarke: No, I cannot. [Interruption.] The system requires considerable transformation. We intend to introduce as widely as possible a system in which it is normal for prisoners to have a working day doing proper work, getting into work habits and acquiring skills. We have some—comparatively few—outstanding examples of workshops run by outside companies and we are attracting wide interest from companies in how we can do that. Prison Industries will have to be addressed and we will probably have to put it on a different and more commercial footing. We are looking for work that can properly be done in prison without jeopardising legitimate small businesses outside. A moment ago I was accused of rushing everything. The great thing about such reforms, which will transform the prison system, is that there is no point in delivering straight away experiments that have not been thought through. I intend to change the atmosphere of prisons very substantially once we have got down to practical ways of doing so.

Jenny Chapman: The introduction of work-based regimes more widely will be warmly welcomed by people who know about rehabilitation, but victims are concerned about reparation. Will the
	Secretary of State make sure that any wages earned as part of a work-based regime go directly to benefit victims or the communities that have been victims of crime?

Kenneth Clarke: Yes. I am glad the hon. Lady agrees on that sensible approach. That, too, is an important innovation that we must make.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s response on increasing work opportunities in prison, but will that extend to more education and training in prison?

Kenneth Clarke: A great deal of education and training is delivered in prisons now, but it needs to be improved; it is patchy. We are not losing our focus on making sure that the basic problems of literacy and numeracy are tackled, let alone other further education delivered, and we hope to make sure that the contracts for provision of education and training services are of universally good quality.

Hywel Williams: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has a ten-minute rule Bill which would make it mandatory for those sentenced to two years or more to undertake a relevant offender management programme before being considered for early release. Do the Government intend to take those proposals forward?

Kenneth Clarke: We sentence people to prison terms as reparation for the wrong that they have done to their victims and society, and when they have completed their sentence we release them. Under existing rules they may be released from prison halfway through the named sentence, but they are on licence thereafter, subject to recall, and that has to be made meaningful. I do not want to add to the number of people in prison who are serving beyond any sentence that they have had imposed upon them for the crime that they committed, but who are waiting to go through some loophole which shows that they qualify for release, not least because it is very difficult to organise true opportunities for prisoners to be able to satisfy such requirements.

Charity Initiatives (Prisons)

Mark Menzies: What steps his Department is taking to involve the charity sector in prison-based initiatives.

Crispin Blunt: The National Offender Management Service is committed to opening commissioning to all sectors. The Green Paper and the Ministry of Justice business plan for 2011 to 2015 set out that we will no longer provide rehabilitation services directly without testing where the private, voluntary and community sectors can provide them more effectively.

Mark Menzies: It is likely that many of the contracts for the rehabilitation of offenders will be placed with large providers, but what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the charities and small-scale providers that do a lot of valuable work in that regard are being rewarded under payment by results?

Crispin Blunt: The value of what is done by charities and the voluntary sector in the rehabilitation of offenders cannot possibly be overstated. There are thousands of groups and tens of thousands of people who want to engage with us to deliver the rehabilitation of offenders because it is the right thing to do. With a system now focusing on outcomes rather than inputs, it would be fairly foolish to ignore the capacity of this great army of auxiliaries to help us deliver rehabilitation.

Madeleine Moon: Barnardo’s is working with G4S Parc prison in my constituency, along with a range of other partners, to look at the Parc supporting families scheme and the family intervention unit, which take the most difficult and prolific offenders and work with them to bring change. I invite the Minister to come to Bridgend to see how that work is changing outcomes, changing the opportunities for rehabilitation, bringing security for communities and reducing reoffending. It is an excellent example of the schemes that we are looking for.

Crispin Blunt: I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s invitation. I have visited all the prisons in Wales, but I have rather more of the estate to get around before I have seen them all. I am anxious to hear about the kind of scheme she describes. I see examples of good practice all over the country of people working very hard in both the prison and probation services to engage other organisations, as she has described, and help the rehabilitation of offenders.

Drug Rehabilitation

Chris White: What steps he is taking to improve rehabilitation for those convicted of drug offences.

Crispin Blunt: Our proposals on the rehabilitation of drug-misusing offenders were published in a Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, in December 2010. These include: ensuring that sentencing helps offenders to come off drugs; piloting drug recovery wings in prisons; supporting the Department of Health in developing payment-by-results drug recovery pilots; and testing options for intensive community-based treatment for both female and male offenders.

Chris White: Between 2005-06 and 2009-10, there was a 24% rise in the number of drug offences committed in Warwickshire. There is clearly a need for improved levels of rehabilitation for those who have suffered from drug addiction. The charitable, voluntary and social enterprise sectors are often best placed to provide this support. Will the Minister therefore tell the House what work he is doing to engage with those sectors to deliver better support and improve rehabilitation while at the same time reducing drug-related crime?

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend has pointed clearly to a consequence of the failure to rehabilitate offenders effectively, which should have happened under the previous Administration. That is why we are engaged in what we are calling a revolution in rehabilitation. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), we will have to ensure that we engage the full
	capacity of the voluntary and charitable sectors, in co-operation with the state sector and the private sector, in order to maximise our capacity to deliver and to focus them on outcomes rather than inputs.

William McCrea: Has the Minister seen the headline in a national newspaper today stating that drug addicts are pocketing benefits amounting to more than £1 billion every year? Does he accept that the welfare system needs to be reformed to give addicts help in the form of treatment, rather than funding their addiction, and how does he see such a proposal being taken forward?

Crispin Blunt: That is an extremely important part of effecting the rehabilitation of offenders. The number of offenders whose offences are drug-related is very substantial, so in conjunction with the Department of Health we are examining and introducing pilots on the whole treatment of drug addiction in the community. Many offenders will enter those pilots and then, I hope, the scheme when we roll it out system-wide by the end of the Parliament. We are also examining with the Department of Health how we treat people in prison in order to ensure that we are much more focused on abstinence as well. I fear I may exhaust the patience of Mr Speaker if I go on.

Legal Aid (Immigration)

Simon Kirby: How much his Department spent on legal aid for cases concerning immigration in the latest period for which figures are available.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Legal Services Commission’s gross operating expenditure on asylum and immigration legal aid in the financial year 2009-10 was £90 million, of which about £26 million was for immigration matters.

Simon Kirby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce the amount of money spent on legal aid for immigration cases is to resolve those cases as promptly as possible, and that, had we not inherited an immigration system in crisis from the Labour party, the costs would be lower already?

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend is quite right. The best way to reduce the amount of money spent on immigration legal aid is to retain taxpayer funding for serious issues only. Our current view is that most individuals involved in immigration cases, such as those applying for study or work visas or making citizenship applications, should not require legal aid to resolve their issues.

Victim Support (Violent Crime)

Margot James: What recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses on support for victims of violent crime; and if he will make a statement.

Crispin Blunt: The Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and the Justice Secretary are in regular contact. The commissioner has just completed her first year in post, working to a set of priorities agreed last year with my right hon. and learned Friend following a meeting with him. These included looking at the most effective
	provision for people bereaved by murder and manslaughter, and improving the treatment of young victims and witnesses.
	As Minister with responsibility for victims policy, I have met the commissioner twice formally and on other occasions informally. We discussed and continue to discuss support for victims of violent crime as well as all other aspects of policy relating to victims and witnesses.

Margot James: In Stourbridge we have a good Victim Support service, staffed largely by volunteers, but it operates on something of a shoestring, which affects awareness and its potential for partnership working. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be some shift of resource in the system towards Victim Support?

Crispin Blunt: I pay tribute to Victim Support, which plays an extremely valuable role in supporting victims and witnesses throughout the country. This year we agreed a funding deal with it, involving a grant of £38 million every year for three years, giving it greater financial security. Victim Support is also able to bid for additional money for local projects from the £18.5 million victims general fund, for which we invited bids this year. Overall, the Ministry of Justice is committing more money to the victims voluntary sector this year than last year, which of course, in the dreadful financial circumstances that we inherited from the previous Administration, shows our priorities.

Robert Flello: The Government talk a really good game about supporting victims, but the reality is that under cover of a review the British Crime Survey is cutting questions on victims’ views, the witness and victim experience survey has ended and Her Majesty’s Courts Service’s court-users survey is coming to an end. We need to listen more to the victims of crime and put them at the heart of our judicial system, so can we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will reinstate survey questions or, indeed, improve on them, and not push under the carpet the experiences of victims and witnesses of how the British legal system operates?

Crispin Blunt: There we have it—a demonstration of acquiring inputs, measurements and targets rather than focusing on outputs. The last thing that we do, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is ignore victims. When we come forward with our strategy for victims and witnesses, he will see the extent of our commitment to ensuring that victims and witnesses are properly supported in the justice system.

Prisoners (Foreign Nationals)

Jessica Lee: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the removal of foreign national prisoners who are awaiting deportation.

Crispin Blunt: I am in regular contact with my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, and my officials are in regular contact with their counterparts at the Home Office. The removal of foreign national prisoners awaiting deportation is a mutual priority.

Jessica Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response. I am sure he agrees that the incarceration of criminals from outside the UK is not a duty owed by taxpayers from Erewash or, indeed, elsewhere throughout the country. The Government’s sentencing Green Paper explores how punishments for foreign offenders could include immediate removal, rather than imprisonment in this country. Will my hon. Friend please update the House on proposals to consider that measure?

Crispin Blunt: There will very shortly be an opportunity for all right hon. and hon. Members to see our proposals in response to the consultation on the Green Paper, and it would be appropriate to wait until then so that proposals come forward together in a coherent manner. We have to remember that we are dealing with the consequences of an era of inaction when, for example, the Council of Europe additional protocol on the transfer of prisoners was open for signature in 1997 and it took until November 2009 for that lot over there to sign it.

Topical Questions

Dominic Raab: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall begin with a topical statement. On 26 April, I attended a Council of Europe ministerial conference in Turkey on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. I was clear that the Court must focus on truly important cases and have proper regard to the judgment of national Parliaments and courts. I met a number of Ministers from other member states and senior figures from the Council of Europe and the Court who were receptive to this view.

Dominic Raab: In a recent and novel ruling, a man convicted of robbery defeated a deportation order on human rights grounds because he had a girlfriend—a relationship that the court described as that of a courting couple and no more. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider amending the Human Rights Act 1998 and the human rights clause in the UK Borders Act 2007 to prevent this kind of judicial legislation under article 8 of the European convention?

Kenneth Clarke: I have not seen that case, but I agree that it sounds like a rather sweeping interpretation of the right to family life, which is what the European convention confirms. If my hon. Friend will let me have the details, I will inquire into the case to see how it reached such a startling conclusion. It is possible that the report that he read, in whichever newspaper he read it, did not bear a very close resemblance to what actually occurred.

Sadiq Khan: The Lord Chancellor has announced plans—this was raised by the previous Lord Chancellor—to reduce by half the sentence for an offender if he or she pleads guilty. In a remarkably flippant response, his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), asked us to pause and reflect on the thoughts and views of a victim of rape. It is not only Labour MPs
	who think this is nonsense, nor only judges or victims groups: the Lord Chancellor’s own Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses says that it is bonkers. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider?

Kenneth Clarke: We are going to give the outcome of our consultation shortly, but I think that that proposal is likely to survive. The fact is that we have always had a reduced tariff for early guilty pleas in this country. It always startles the public when they discover that this has underlined our sentencing policy for many years. It is true that we are thinking of putting up the reduction to a half. It makes an enormous difference to costs, police time and the involvement of unnecessary preparations for trial if everybody leaves guilty pleas to the last possible moment. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary rightly said, victims and witnesses are put through an ordeal if they are preparing for a trial where they expect to be accused of lying because the man has not been induced to plead at an early enough stage. Those are the considerations that lay behind this proposal.

Jason McCartney: Last month, I visited Kirklees restorative justice team, who, in Kirklees alone, need to keep only two offenders out of prison for a year to cover the whole of their budget. However, does the Minister agree that probably one of the most impressive elements of restorative justice is the immeasurable improvement in victims’ perceptions?

Crispin Blunt: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The evidence from Northern Ireland, where a statutory form of restorative justice has been working positively in the youth sector, shows 85% levels of victim satisfaction. The data are getting better regarding the effect of restorative justice on the rehabilitation of offenders, and appear to show at least a 14% improvement if we use it. That is a pretty convincing case for the proper use of restorative justice, quite apart from the financial benefits that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Nicholas Dakin: The Secretary of State will be well aware of the tragic loss of five young lives on the secure prison estate in recent months. Will he outline what work he and his officials are undertaking to look into those tragic deaths, and what measures he intends to put in place to prevent future occurrences?

Kenneth Clarke: We have had an unfortunate instance, but we will obviously investigate each of those tragic cases. Unfortunately, there are always extremely vulnerable people in young offender institutions, and steps have to be taken to protect them against self-harm. I have no reason to believe that anything has changed significantly that connects these deaths. I assure the hon. Gentleman that each and every one of them will be carefully considered to see whether anything went wrong or whether something can be improved.

Mark Lancaster: Does the Secretary of State share my concern and that of my constituents that prisoners are not spending their time inside constructively? Will any future Bill address that issue by ensuring that prisoners spend more time at work than in their cells?

Kenneth Clarke: As I explained earlier, I feel that concern strongly. The matter does not so much require legislation as sensible organisation, change in the structure of Prison Industries, and more leeway for governors to arrange work when there is a sensible opportunity to do so. A significant change in the culture of parts of the Prison Service would add to the good work that goes on at the moment, which is quite rare and is scattered across the prison estate. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important aim.

Teresa Pearce: Earlier this month, the foetal anti-convulsant litigation against Sanofi Aventis was discontinued after six years’ preparation. The claimants and their families have been denied their day in court because legal aid funding was withdrawn at the last moment. Will the Minister say what funding arrangements will be available for multi-party actions in future so that such families are not denied access to justice?

Jonathan Djanogly: The funding of clinical negligence cases in this country is about 50:50 between legal aid and conditional fee arrangements—in other words, private funding. We believe that when people have the opportunity of private funding, they should take that option. In looking at our proposals for reviewing privately funded litigation, we are taking clinical negligence cases on board and are moulding our proposals to help those who want to take such cases.

Richard Drax: The feeling has been expressed by several sources in the two prisons in my constituency that former members of the armed services are not looked on favourably in Prison Service recruitment. Will the Minister reassure me that that is not the case?

Crispin Blunt: It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend, given our mutual background, that I would regard such discrimination against former members of the armed services as wholly unacceptable. If prison officers can produce evidence for that, I would be extremely interested to receive it.

Lindsay Roy: The Crime and Security Act 2010 received Royal Assent more than a year ago. How much longer will victims of overseas terrorism have to wait to receive their compensation? Those victims include Will Pike, who will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair, following injuries sustained in the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008.

Crispin Blunt: I saw Will Pike and his father last week along with another representative of victims of terrorism overseas. We are bringing forward proposals on that, and will do so when we bring forward comprehensive proposals on victims, witnesses and criminal injuries compensation.

Peter Aldous: Does the Minister agree that justice is best dispensed through a network of local courts, such as that at Lowestoft in my constituency? Will he provide an assurance that, following the recent round of closures, there are no plans for
	further rationalisation and that every effort will be made to sustain the existing network of magistrates courts?

Jonathan Djanogly: I believe that justice is best dispensed through a network of courts that is efficient and well-utilised, and that provides the facilities that are expected of a modern courts system, particularly for victims and witnesses. I confirm that there are no current plans for further rationalisation.

Paul Goggins: Will the Justice Secretary take this opportunity to update the House on his policy on the office of chief coroner?

Kenneth Clarke: We are considering our policy in the light of the debate and the result in the House of Lords. I have been discussing the matter with various interest groups, various Members of another place, and one or two Members of this House. Some of the lobbyists attribute to the chief coroner powers to tackle all kinds of failings in the system that the legislation never gave him or her. We could deliver some of the substantial changes that need to be made to the coroner system rather more quickly by distributing the functions elsewhere, rather than by creating unnecessarily a whole new office. I am considering the arguments. We ought to concentrate on what outcomes we are trying to produce, rather than argue about structures and new institutions.

Mr Speaker: I call Graham Evans. He is not here. Mr Davies.

Philip Davies: Has the Secretary of State read the research commissioned by Lord Ashcroft and conducted by Populus called “Crime, Punishment & The People—Public opinion and the criminal justice debate”? If he has read the report, which I commend to him, will he confirm that its findings, which will make sobering reading for him, will be part of the proposals on sentencing?

Kenneth Clarke: I shall look at the report to see whether it is the source of my hon. Friend’s views on the subject of crime and punishment, which he frequently gives, and then I will try to find some counter-reading to recommend to him. I will try to study it if I get the chance.
	The purpose of sentencing in this country is to punish offenders effectively and proportionately for what they have done. The purpose that I intend to add to that more clearly is to try to reduce the number who simply offend again and come back into the system. If we cut reoffending, it will mean fewer crimes and fewer victims, and we will make a positive contribution instead of recycling the same old people through the same old not very well functioning system.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Secretary of State take a look at the case of Shrien Dewani, a British citizen who faces extradition to South Africa? He has shown me convincing evidence that he will not face a fair trial there. Can we reconsider extraditing that citizen?

Kenneth Clarke: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I am sure will be interested in considering the case.

Julian Huppert: The Home Secretary recently announced her intention for police to do 80% of charging. I can see how that is to the benefit of the police, but has the Justice Secretary had any discussions about how we can ensure that it is not to the disbenefit of justice?

Kenneth Clarke: That too is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the question should be addressed to the Home Office first.

Kate Green: Legal aid to take family cases to court will in future be available only when domestic violence is an issue. Otherwise, couples will be expected to go to mediation. However, mediation may not be appropriate where there is a high degree of conflict, even when domestic violence is absent. What consideration is the Minister giving to how such cases will work after legal aid is removed?

Jonathan Djanogly: We are studying that issue very carefully through the consultation. We believe that mediation, as a cheaper, quicker and less stressful alternative, is normally the best way to go, but there will be circumstances in which it is not appropriate, domestic violence being one of them. We are considering the definition of domestic violence carefully.

David Ruffley: Prisoners who reoffend cost the UK economy £10 billion a year. Is not the real solution for the Secretary of State to continue his excellent record as a public service reformer by incentivising private companies to rehabilitate prisoners and letting them earn a profit when they cut reoffending rates?

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked with me on public service reform in the past. I am glad he shares our objective because, as he says, it saves the economy substantial amounts and reduces the number of victims and further crimes if a higher proportion
	of those who finish their sentence do not go on to reoffend and get convicted again. The approach that we are adopting to improving the reoffending reduction programmes, which is to pay by results and make it quite clear that charitable and ethical investors can get a return on their capital if they succeed in delivering that objective, is a valuable and innovative way of trying to achieve real results rather than strive needlessly.

Ian Lavery: Mr Dean, a constituent of mine, is still waiting after three years for full payment of a compensation award from a persistent offender. What action are the Government taking, and what action will they take, against persistent non-payment of compensation awards by persistent offenders?

Crispin Blunt: I am afraid that we inherited a criminal injuries compensation scheme that was £765 million in debt. That is why we have inadequate funds to pay compensation, and why the payment of compensation in many cases has, regrettably, been delayed. We are trying to repair a system that was bust when we inherited it.

Stephen Metcalfe: Recently in my constituency, a convicted sex offender who was automatically released at the halfway point of his sentence reoffended in the most appalling way. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss both automatic release for predatory child sex offenders, and whether it is appropriate to house such individuals close to young families, schools, a playground and a park?

Crispin Blunt: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the individual circumstances of that case. On the face of it, that situation should not have been enabled to happen. There should have been a sensible degree of risk assessment and a proper placement of the individual concerned. I am therefore only too happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the details of that case.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Nicholas Clegg: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government’s plans to reform the other place.
	At the last general election, each major party committed to a democratically elected second Chamber. The coalition agreement set out very clearly the Government’s intention to deliver that, but the roots of these changes can be traced back much further. A century ago, the Government, led by Herbert Asquith, promised to create
	“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis.”
	There has been progress in the intervening years—the majority of hereditary peers have gone, and the other place is now predominantly made up of life peers. We should see ourselves as completing that work.
	People have a right to choose their representatives. That is the most basic feature of a modem democracy. Our second Chamber, which is known for its wisdom and expertise, is none the less undermined by the fact it is not directly accountable to the British people. I am therefore publishing a draft Bill today, and an accompanying White Paper, which set out proposals for reform.
	In the programme for government, we undertook to
	“establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.”
	I chair that cross-party Committee, which reached agreement on many of the most important issues—not on all of them, but good progress was made—and those deliberations have greatly shaped the proposals that are being published today. I should like to pay tribute to all members of the Committee, particularly Opposition Members, who engaged with us in an open and collaborative fashion. Let me also thank those individuals whose past work on Lords reform has laid the foundations for what we are doing today, particularly the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the right hon. and noble Lord Wakeham. Rather than start anew, the Government have benefited from their previous endeavours. Today’s proposals represent a genuine, collective effort over time.
	The draft Bill and White Paper will now be scrutinised by a Joint Committee composed of 13 peers and 13 Members of this House. The Committee will report early next year, and a Government Bill will then be introduced.
	The Prime Minister and I are clear that we want the first elections to the reformed upper Chamber to take place in 2015. However, although we know what we want to achieve, we are open minded about how we get there. Clearly, our fixed goal is greater democratic legitimacy for the other place, but we will be pragmatic in order to achieve that. We therefore propose an upper House made up of 300 members, each eligible for a single term of three Parliaments. Three hundred is the number that we judge to be right, but this is an art and not a science. In the vast majority of bicameral systems, the second Chamber is significantly smaller. That arrangement helps to maintain a clear distinction between the two Houses. We are confident that 300 full-time Members can cover the work comfortably. We are, however, open to alternative views on that.
	The coalition agreement committed the Government to produce proposals for
	“a wholly or mainly elected chamber.”
	That debate is reflected in what we are publishing today. The Bill makes provision for 80% of Members to be elected, with the remaining 20% to be appointed independently. The 60 appointed Members would sit as Cross Benchers, not as representatives of political parties, and in addition bishops of the Church of England would continue to sit in the other place, but would be reduced in number from 26 to 12. The White Paper includes the case for a 100% elected House of Lords. The 80:20 split is the more complicated option, and so has been put into the draft Bill in order to illustrate it in legislative terms. The 100% option would be easy to substitute into the draft Bill should that be where we end up.
	There are people on both sides of the House who support a fully elected Chamber, believing that an elected House of Lords should be just that. Others, again on both sides, take a different view, and support having a non-elected component in order to retain an element of non-party expertise, as well as to keep greater distinction between the two Houses. Personally, I have always supported a 100% elected House of Lords, but the key thing is not to make the best the enemy of the good. That approach has stymied Lords reform for far too long. After all, 80% is a whole lot better than 0%.
	Elections to the new reformed House will be staggered: at each general election a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. That is to prevent the other place from becoming a mirror image of this House. In the Bill we set out how those elections could be conducted using the single transferable vote. The coalition agreement specifies only that the system must be proportional, and what is most important is that it is different from whatever we use in the Commons. That is to ensure that the two Chambers have distinct mandates; one should not seek to emulate the other.
	STV allows for that, and would also give the upper Chamber greater independence from party control. Votes are cast for individuals rather than parties, putting the emphasis on the expertise and experience that candidates offer, rather than the colour of the rosette they wear. We want to preserve the independence of spirit that has long differentiated that House from this one. I know that some Members prefer a party list system, including Opposition members of the cross-party Committee I chaired. We are willing to have this debate, and have not ruled out a list-based system in the White Paper.
	The Commons will retain ultimate say over legislation through the Parliament Acts, and will continue to have a decisive right over the vote of supply. In order for a Government to remain in office they will still need to secure the confidence of MPs. The other place will continue to be a revising Chamber, providing scrutiny and expertise. Its size, electoral cycle, voting system, and terms will all help to keep it distinct from the Commons and a place that remains one step removed from the day-to-day party politics that, quite rightly, animate this House. What will be different is that our second Chamber will finally have a democratic mandate, and will be much more accountable as a result.
	Clearly, the transition must be carefully managed. We propose to phase in the reform over three electoral cycles. In 2015 a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. The number of sitting peers will be reduced by a third, although we are not prescribing the process for that; it will be up to the parties in the other place to decide. In 2020, a further third will come in under the new system, and then again in 2025. There are other ways of staging the transition, however, and the White Paper sets out two of them.
	To conclude, history teaches us that completing the unfinished business of Lords reform is not without challenges. Our proposals are careful and balanced. They represent evolution, not revolution, and are a typically British change. I hope that Members from both sides of the House and the other place will help us to get the proposals right. The Government are ready to listen and are prepared to adapt, but we are determined, in the end, to act. I commend this statement to the House.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement, and for how he chaired the working group—squaring the views of Lord Strathclyde with those of the rest of us was nothing short of a master class in conflict resolution. I am also pleased to see the Prime Minister here supporting the Deputy Prime Minister. The latter must feel like the manager of West Ham seeing his chairman after the final whistle on Saturday. I hope he has a better outcome than the chairman—I mean the manager—of West Ham had on Saturday.
	I agree that our politics and constitution are in need of reform. Like the Deputy Prime Minister’s party, Labour had a manifesto commitment to create a fully elected second Chamber. Let us be frank: Lords reform is not near the top of any of our constituents’ priorities. They are more interested—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for that support; I am not sure whether the Deputy Prime Minister is. Our constituents are more interested in their schools and hospitals, and whether they will have a job at the end of the year. This is about how we write the laws that affect us, including laws on schools and hospitals, and who writes those laws, so if we are doing it, we have to get it right.
	The present situation is unsustainable. The Lords has more than 800 Members, and the Prime Minister intends to pack in another 200, at great expense to the taxpayer—117 have already been added since May 2010—while at the same time cutting the number of elected Members in this House. More unelected, fewer elected—and he calls it progress. I fear that the Deputy Prime Minister will soon realise that the Tories are the real obstacle to reform, just as they were when we were in power.
	It is important that we get the details right. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he supports a fully elected second Chamber, yet he is unveiling a Bill today that leaves at least 20% appointed, plus bishops, plus Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister. The Joint Committee will have a built-in Government majority, so the idea of it overturning anything of substance in the Bill by next year is unrealistic. These proposals risk being a dog’s dinner, with nobody happy at the outcome—
	not even the Lib Dem activists, whom the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to appease. After 12 months in office, he has nothing new to say on Lords reform, but is simply putting out proposals that kick the issue into the long grass.
	Before the Deputy Prime Minister delegates responsibility for the Bill to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform, and to Lord Strathclyde, can he answer these 11 questions on the proposals?
	Bearing in mind that the country comprehensively rejected the AV system two weeks ago, is the Deputy Prime Minister seriously suggesting that he should impose a system of proportional representation for the second Chamber without consulting the electorate? What powers does he want a reformed House of Lords to have? How will he deal with the conventions that currently govern the relationship between the two Chambers? Does he believe that the relationship should be codified? What role does he envisage for the bishops in the second Chamber, and why 12? Can he set out the cost of a reformed second Chamber? If it is possible that no peers would be forced to leave until 2025, what does he predict the maximum size and cost of the second Chamber will be in the interim? Will he confirm that he wants reform on the statute book by the next election? Will he confirm whether he intends to use the Parliament Acts to force the proposals through? Will he also confirm whether coalition MPs and peers will be whipped to vote for the Bill when it comes out of the Joint Committee? Finally, will he allow a debate on his Bill in Government time before the summer recess?
	The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed by the publication of this Bill just how irrelevant he and his party are in the coalition Government. I am afraid that the Bill, the White Paper and the whole process are a huge anticlimax.

Nicholas Clegg: Not only did the right hon. Gentleman fluff the lines at the beginning, he also failed to rise to the occasion. This is an occasion when, for once, he could put aside his sour observations and try to work across parties, as we have in the cross-party Committee, to make some progress not only, I should remind Opposition Members, on something that was in their manifesto—by the way, so was AV, but a fat lot of good that did us all—but on something that we have been discussing as a country for almost 100 years. If that is not long enough, I do not know what is.
	Before I turn to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, let me address the vital issue, which he has raised once again, about a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. It would be so much easier to take the right hon. Gentleman’s admonitions in favour of 100% seriously if, during the 13 years under Labour, more had been delivered than 0%. Given that the country has been debating House of Lords reform for more than a century and that all three parties made a manifesto commitment on this issue last year, it is crucial not to make the best the enemy of the good. We have set out in the Bill how an 80:20 split would work, and we have maintained the option in the White Paper of moving to 100% if that is what people want. That is exactly what we will submit to the Joint Committee.
	Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, the cost is almost impossible to estimate at this stage, without knowing precisely what the final composition of the House of Lords will be or the method of transition from where we are now to where we want to be in 2025. In the Bill, we have proposed a staged election—or election and appointment—by thirds in 2015, 2020 and 2025, alongside a staged reduction, commensurate with that, from the House of Lords as it is at the moment.

Helen Goodman: How would you do that?

Nicholas Clegg: We will leave it to the House of Lords itself to decide the precise method of reduction by thirds. We have set out two options in the White Paper. One would involve moving to the full reduction of the size of the House of Lords to 300 immediately in 2015; the other would be to do nothing until 2025, which would mean that the reformed House of Lords would have become very large indeed in 15 years’ time. We would then make the reduction at that point. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that we will invite the Joint Committee to look at.
	I can confirm our determination to see the reform of the House of Lords reach the statute book in time for the elections in 2015. We want to see the first elections to a reformed House of Lords take place in 2015. We will treat this legislation as we treat all Government legislation. This is something to which both our manifestos—in fact, all the manifestos—are committed, and it is clearly set out in the coalition agreement. We will use all the legislative tools at our disposal to deliver on that commitment.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Brevity is therefore of the essence.

Eleanor Laing: Does the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate that there will be a warm welcome for the fact that he is introducing a draft Bill? We look forward to its being thoroughly scrutinised by the Joint Committee. Will he please explain how the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament will change when an elected second Chamber competes with this House and its Members for democratic legitimacy?

Nicholas Clegg: We discussed this in the cross-party Committee. It is precisely to avoid competition between the two Houses that the Bill and the White Paper propose different systems of election, different geographical constituencies—the Lords would not represent constituencies in the way that we understand in this House—and non-renewable 15-year terms. Bicameral systems in other countries show that, as long as the mandate and the term in one House are very different from those in the other, an asymmetrical relationship can be preserved.

David Blunkett: The stated aims of the proposal are clearly legitimacy and accountability. How would an election system that leaves the electorate unable to understand who they have elected add to legitimacy,
	and how would accountability be aided by 15-year non-renewable terms, during which there would be no power of recall for the electorate? Is it not true that a mandate given to the second Chamber would reduce the mandate of this House?

Nicholas Clegg: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the insight that it is best to have long non-renewable terms in the other place in a reformed House of Lords precisely to avoid such conflict with the other place was not established by the present Government or the cross-party Committee I chaired; rather, it is an idea that has enjoyed consensus from the days of the Wakeham commission onwards. If we look at the proposals from a cross-party group of MPs, which were given considerable support by the previous Labour Government in 2005—the “Breaking the Deadlock” proposals—we find that a preference was made not only for non-renewable terms of between 12 and 14 years, but for the single transferable vote. These are not new proposals: they are drawn from a lot of insights identified by others from all parties in the past.

Simon Hughes: Given that this issue has been on the agenda of Parliament for so long and that reforming the second Chamber is now the settled will of the leadership of all three parties, is not the test of this Bill whether the leadership of those parties makes sure that the democratically elected Members of Parliament prevail in a reform that is long overdue and that the proposals are not derailed by people who are not elected, but are either hereditary or appointed—a completely unacceptable branch of a modern democratic legislature?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend in the basic principle that people should be able to hold to account those who make the laws of the land by which the people of this country have to abide. That is a simple democratic principle: it is not new; it is shared by Members of all parties; it is widely recognised as a simple democratic principle across the democratic world. It is interesting to note that there are still people even in this democratically elected Chamber who seem to resist that very principle.

Frank Dobson: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that a sounder approach would be to decide what we want the House of Lords to do and what its functions should be before we decide how it is made up? Otherwise, we are in the situation of picking the team before we have decided what game it is going to play. Surely if it is to be elected, any self-respecting elected Members of the upper House will not feel themselves bound by the customs and practice that have applied to an unelected Chamber—and we will thus get conflict between this Chamber and the upper Chamber.

Nicholas Clegg: We already know the role of the House of Lords—scrutiny and revision. Every time this issue has been examined by a range of cross-party groups—the Wakeham commission was just one of many examples—the same conclusion has been reached: namely, those powers should remain the same and as long as the mandate, the electoral system and the
	terms of those elected in the other place are different, the basic relationship between the two Houses can remain constant.

Andrew Turner: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether he intends to continue to pursue, in the words of Lord Steel of Aikwood,
	“private obsessions with little public resonance—AV and an elected House of Lords, for example”?

Nicholas Clegg: I just do not recognise that. A commitment was made by the hon. Gentleman’s party, by the Labour party and by the party I lead and it was set out very clearly in all three manifestos of the main parties, so I do not think it can conceivably be described as a private preoccupation for one politician or another. This is an issue that we have been debating as a country for over a century. A very simple principle is at stake: do we believe, yes or no, that it is a good thing in a democracy for people to be able to hold those who make the laws of the land directly to account? According to our manifestos, all of us believe that that is the right principle; it is therefore right for this Government to try, on a consensual, open and pragmatic basis, to reach agreement so that we can finally put that principle into practice.

Kate Hoey: Most people will agree that the House of Lords has become too large, but that could be changed by all the parties agreeing to stop making so many new Lords. I do not know what happens on the buses in Sheffield and what people on those buses are saying, but I certainly know that people on the Clapham omnibus in my area are not demanding the reform of the House of Lords, as they have many, many higher priorities, yet they must see huge amounts of time, effort and money being wasted on this reform.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I accept that many issues that we discuss in the Chamber, and many issues with which any Government must deal, may not resonate on the doorsteps, but they may none the less be significant and important to our national life. I think we all agree that it is important for world trade rules to work properly, but that is not an issue that is raised with me on the doorstep very often. It is important for us to get local government finance right, and that too is not raised on the doorstep very often, but it is none the less significant and important. The fact that an issue is not raised with us by our constituents does not mean that it is not worthy of debate. If that is not the case, I cannot imagine why Government after Government have debated this very issue for nearly a century

Bernard Jenkin: Is this not yet another tatty roadshow brought to us by the same people who thought that the British people wanted the alternative vote? If the Deputy Prime Minister really believes that the British people want this reform—and I note that he makes no criticism at all of the way in which the House of Lords currently does its job—why does he not submit these proposals to a referendum, and let the British people decide?

Nicholas Clegg: I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year he fought a campaign in favour of—this was in the Conservative party manifesto—
	“a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”
	without a commitment to a referendum.

Mark Durkan: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that Lords reform is essentially a penalty shoot-out in which no one will score, because nearly everyone is opposing nearly everyone else’s proposed reforms? If we are to join him in this constitutional version of the fantasy football league, will he tell us whether there will be a limit to the number of Members of the House of Lords who can be appointed by virtue of being Ministers, whether it will be possible for elected Members to be appointed as Ministers, and why there is still discrimination in favour of one Church and England in respect of the Lords spiritual?

Nicholas Clegg: Whatever one’s views about the Church, it is a fact that it is an established Church, and that is reflected in the composition of the House of Lords. As for ministerial appointments by the Prime Minister, we think it acceptable in principle—and this is another matter that we would invite the Joint Committee to examine—for future Prime Ministers to make supernumerary appointments of Ministers to the reformed House of Lords, but only for the duration of their holding of ministerial office. In other words, there would be a temporary mechanism whereby Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister could be held to account by one or other of the Houses in Westminster.

John Redwood: What sort of people does the Deputy Prime Minister wish to select for this hybrid Chamber, and why does he think that those skills would be lacking under a fully elected system?

Nicholas Clegg: It would not be up to me, or to any members of future Governments, to make such selections. Core to the proposals in the Bill for the model of 80% elected and 20% appointed is the making of appointments by an entirely independent and statutory appointments commission, the process conducted in an entirely open and meritocratic manner.

David Winnick: I must tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I have never seen less enthusiasm for a Minister’s proposals on the Government Benches. He should have looked behind him.
	Being a sporting sort of person—as I am sure he is—would the Deputy Prime Minister be willing to bet me whatever sum he thinks appropriate that his proposed system will not be in place, or anywhere near it, in 2015?

Nicholas Clegg: Given that the hon. Gentleman and other Members in all parts of the House fought a general election last year on a manifesto commitment to House of Lords reform, given that, as I explained earlier, we have been discussing it as a country for a very long time, and given our determination in government to see the first step in these changes made in 2015, I am determined to prove the hon. Gentleman wrong.

John Thurso: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his modest progress. The plain fact is that an unelected Lords is an illegitimate Lords, and that weakens the Lords and weakens Parliament as a whole. An elected Lords is a strong Lords, and that strengthens Parliament as a whole. Does my right hon. Friend not find it faintly ridiculous that after 13 years of abject failure, the dinosaurs over there are only interested in feather-bedding the dinosaurs upstairs?

Nicholas Clegg: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I agree that the notion that somehow more democracy can weaken a legislature would strike most people outside this Chamber as an extraordinarily peculiar argument.

Liz Kendall: Does the Deputy Prime Minister personally believe that there is a case for keeping bishops in the House of Lords, and if so, what is it?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, the Church is an established Church. We have set out proposals in the Bill, however, under which if progress were to be made on a largely elected, but partly appointed, House of Lords, on a supernumerary basis the Church would be represented but on a much smaller scale than we now—[Interruption.] The Bill envisages a cut from 26 bishops to 12.

Edward Leigh: Will the Deputy Prime Minister remind the House how many other countries elect people for 15 years—and he will have to do better than citing the likes of Papua New Guinea and Fiji this time? Does he not understand that having people there for 15 years will be the worst of all worlds, because they will claim democratic accountability to confront this elected House but they will be accountable to no one?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, the idea that in a reformed House of Lords there should be long non-renewable terms is not new. It has been put forward on numerous occasions before, and with cross-party support. However, if Members feel that is a step too far or the period of time is too long, that is exactly the kind of point on which the Joint Committee should seek to make representations.

Ben Bradshaw: I welcome these proposals, but may I suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister might have included in his roll call of thanks the late Robin Cook, as it is often forgotten that under his leadership this House narrowly—by just three votes—failed to support an 80% elected Lords back in 2003? The Deputy Prime Minister knows that these proposals will go nowhere unless he is prepared to use the Parliament Acts. Will he now commit to using them if these proposals are blocked in the other place?

Nicholas Clegg: As I have said, we are very keen to proceed on as consensual and pragmatic a basis as possible. [Interruption.] If I may just finish, we are presenting the Bill and the White Paper today. We hope the Joint Committee will be established before the summer, and it can then do a thorough job of applying pre-legislative scrutiny to the proposals we are publishing
	today, with a view to our submitting final draft legislation in the next Session. The Bill will be treated in the same way as any other Government legislation. It was part of all our manifestos and features in the coalition agreement, and if we cannot make headway by any other means, we will use all the legitimate instruments at our disposal to get the Bill implemented before the next general election. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about Robin Cook: I am very happy to recognise that it was an omission not to acknowledge the very significant role played by Robin Cook—and also, dare I say, by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and many other Opposition Members, who have for many years argued precisely the case we are seeking to promote today.

William Cash: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the draft Bill states that nothing in these proposals shall affect the primacy of the House of Commons. As nobody else has been able to define what “primacy” means, how does the Deputy Prime Minister propose to define it?

Nicholas Clegg: Primacy is clearly set out in the two Parliament Acts, and was also clearly set out in my earlier statement. My view is that the fact of greater election to another Chamber does not in and of itself mean the balance between the two Houses is seriously disturbed. That is confirmed by examples of bicameral systems elsewhere in the democratic world.

Graham Stringer: The Deputy Prime Minister keeps asserting that the conventions will stay the same, but when the other place has 100% elected Senators or Lords and they take a different view from him, how will he assert this House’s authority over another elected House?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, I think that the Parliament Acts are very clear on that point.

Mark Williams: Does my right hon. Friend see these proposals as a means of empowering the voices of the devolved nations and the English regions? Manifestly, that will be achieved by electing people, rather than hand-picking appointees, in order to achieve balance across the country as a whole.

Nicholas Clegg: Clearly, a proportional electoral system, whichever one is finally settled on, would be reflective of opinion across the whole of the United Kingdom, so people across the United Kingdom can look forward to this as providing a greater reflection of opinions the length and breadth of the land.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking that the Joint Committee that is to be set up will include representatives from the smaller parties represented in Parliament, unlike the Committee that he set up previously, which brought forward this Bill?

Nicholas Clegg: This is clearly not something for the Government to decide; it is up to the usual channels, and I know that a number of conversations have already been had. Clearly, the ambition is—or should be, at least—that the Joint Committee embraces the widest possible opinion from this House.

Julian Lewis: When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) how one would resolve a clash between the two Houses, the Deputy Prime Minister said, “Well, this is why we are going to have different electoral systems, with proportional representation for the reformed Chamber.” Given that he believes that proportional representation is more democratic than first past the post, which of the two Chambers would he believe to be taking the correct decision if there were a clash on the basis that he outlined?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, as is set out clearly under the Parliament Acts and in line with the convention that the Government are held to account primarily by this Chamber, the supremacy of this House would remain.

Angela Smith: I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister should be focusing on this issue, given that in the local elections in Sheffield people were bothered only about jobs, inflation and getting his party out of the town hall. However, how can he describe his vision as “representative” or “democratic”, given that it would give representation to those who are members of the Church of England but would not give it to those of Jewish faith, Catholic faith or Muslim faith?

Nicholas Clegg: The Catholic Church prohibits its bishops from sitting in Parliaments and political bodies. Leaders of other faiths—I was in discussion with the Chief Rabbi just yesterday—also recognise that they do not possess the hierarchies that would allow them to provide that kind of representation. Those leaders of other faiths have long accepted, acknowledged and supported the idea of continued representation of the established Church in this country, even in a reformed House of Lords.

Conor Burns: May I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that it is the view of many on the Government Benches that we did not come to this place to vote for measures that will undermine the democratic supremacy and legitimacy of this House? It is widely known that, as he said in his remarks, he has passionate and long-held views on what should happen to the other place. Others of us have equally strong and passionate opposing views. Why does he seem to be indicating to the House today that he is not going to follow the example of what happened in March 2007 and February 2003, when this House last voted on these measures, and offer everyone in this House a free vote, so that they can vote with their conscience?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I acknowledge that people will have different views, will feel strongly about the matter and will come at it from different directions. The fact is that last year all of us, notwithstanding some relatively minor differences between our manifestos, stood before the British people on manifesto commitments to see reform to the other place finally be delivered. We will of course have further debates, deliberation and argument, not least in the Joint Committee, but this is Government business, this is in the coalition agreement and it is a manifesto commitment from Members in all parts of the House, and it should be proceeded with on that basis.

Dennis Skinner: Against the background of events a few days ago when the British people voted by 70% to throw out the alternative vote, has it not yet crossed the Deputy Prime Minister’s mind that he has probably been set up by his Tory friends to do this job today?

Nicholas Clegg: Never occurred to me, Mr Speaker—never. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that any electoral change or changes to the electoral system can only be preceded by a referendum. It is worth remembering that we have changed electoral systems in this country on many occasions—for the European Parliament, the London assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—and that the Government are proposing to do it for elected mayors; all without referendums.

Jo Swinson: Only a fifth of the current Members of the House of Lords are women yet we still have the anachronism of places effectively being reserved for men in the form of bishops. There might be differences of opinion in this House about the merits of all-women shortlists, but surely we can all agree that in terms of diversity the last thing Parliament needs is de facto all-male shortlists. How will the Government take the opportunity presented by reforming the House of Lords to create a more diverse Parliament that better reflects society?

Nicholas Clegg: We cover this in the White Paper. My hon. Friend is right to say that a reform of the other place presents all political parties—and, I must stress, the party I lead in particular—with an opportunity to have greater diversity in those who represent us in a reformed House of Lords. It is primarily for the political parties to decide how they will use the mechanism of a new form of election to ensure that there is greater diversity in the candidates they put forward.

Tom Harris: May I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to bringing to House of Lords reform the same golden touch that he brought to the AV referendum? In practical terms, what will a wholly or partly elected House of Lords be able to do that the current House of Lords cannot?

Nicholas Clegg: It would fulfil the same function as it has at the moment, but it would do so with far greater legitimacy because it would be more directly accountable. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that there is something wrong with the argument of principle that those who have a hand in crafting the laws of this land should be directly accountable to the millions of people who have to abide by the laws of this land? I understand that there is a lot of point-scoring going on, but surely that basic principle is something that even he would not deny.

Duncan Hames: I would like to see every vote cast in our democratic Parliament cast by individuals who have been elected. We should all recognise, however, the widespread respect among our constituents for the spoken contributions made in the other place by Cross Benchers. Has my right hon. Friend or his Committee considered measures by which they could be allowed to stay in the House of Lords so long as the votes were the exclusive preserve of those who had been elected?

Nicholas Clegg: Clearly, one of the features of the proposal we are including in the draft Bill—namely, 80% elected Members and 20% appointed by an independent statutory appointments body—is that those appointed Members would sit not as party representatives but as Cross Benchers.

Barry Gardiner: May I suggest to the right hon. Member that he is confusing legitimacy with accountability? Although election before one takes office might give legitimacy, it certainly does not give accountability. Accountability comes from an election after one has done things over the 15 year period. Will he reflect on that?

Nicholas Clegg: I think the hon. Gentleman has some force to his argument, but one thing we were keen to preserve in the cross-party Committee was that any reform should be designed in a manner that would allow elected Members of any reformed House of Lords to retain a certain independence and even distance from party politics. A lengthy non-renewable term was seen as one way of delivering that, not only by the cross-party Committee that I chaired but by many other cross-party Committees that have considered the issue in the past.

Nicky Morgan: Is it not the case that if Members of the second Chamber are elected on a constituency basis, however big those constituencies are, and members of the public disagree with what their Member of Parliament has advised them, they will inevitably turn to Members of the second Chamber? Is the Deputy Prime Minister not therefore setting up a conflict that members of the public do not want to see?

Nicholas Clegg: First, as I said earlier, this House will have the final say—that will remain. Secondly, I think there is a world of difference between the number of people whom we all represent as Members of this House and the hundreds of thousands who would be represented by individual elected Members in any reformed House of Lords. That would be clearly understood by the public as providing a much greater and more direct mandate to those of us in this House than to those elected to the other House.

Angus MacNeil: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he has had discussions with Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, on Lords reform? Given the wonderful and historic scenes we have seen with our Queen in Dublin this afternoon, should not this Parliament also catch up with the modern world and ensure that in a democracy all Chambers try to reflect the democratic wishes of the people they aim to represent?

Nicholas Clegg: I spoke to the First Minister earlier today and explained to him in considerable detail what we are proposing, and we are both agreed that we will continue those discussions in the near future.

Andrew Percy: I broadly welcome the proposals to elect our second Chamber and I shall certainly be supporting them. We have had some assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister on the incredibly long term in office of 15 years. Two weeks
	ago, the people of Brigg and Goole on the same day kicked out their Labour council and replaced it with a Conservative council, and voted by a margin of about 70% to reject a change in the electoral system. Is the electoral system also up for discussion along with the multi-Member constituencies? Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least listen to us on that?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said, in the draft Bill we have proposed one system—the single transferable vote—primarily because it seems to be the system that gives the fullest individual mandate to elected Members rather than casting them in a party political light. It is the individual independence of spirit in the other place that everyone agrees should be preserved, but there are alternatives. In the White Paper—I know that Opposition Members feel particularly strongly about this—there is the alternative of a party list system, which we have said is available to us, as explained in the White Paper. If that is where the debate takes us, we are very open to those alternatives.

Tristram Hunt: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share the views of his hon. Friend the Liberal Democrat president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), that Members elected in a different Chamber by STV will have greater legitimacy than Members of this House? Does he still believe that Members elected in another Chamber will be banned from then standing for election to this Chamber, and is that concordant with the Human Rights Act 1998?

Nicholas Clegg: We have looked into the latter point and it is consistent with the Human Rights Act. The draft Bill envisages—this enjoyed cross-party support on the Committee I chaired—that someone from the other place would not be able to stand for election to this place unless they had completed a cooling-off period of one term. Clearly, we do not want to transform the other place into a sort of launch pad for people’s careers in this place. The reverse, however, would not be the case.

Tony Baldry: Surely the answer to the points made by the hon. Members for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is that the two archbishops and 10 senior diocesan bishops will bring to a reformed House of Lords considerable wisdom and expertise. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) about diversity, I hope that by 2015 the House will have had the opportunity of voting to legislate for the appointment of women bishops.

Nicholas Clegg: That is a very important point, which shows that there is a chance of reform on several fronts, not just one.

Susan Elan Jones: The Deputy Prime Minister speaks of supernumerary appointments—a rather complex word. Could it not be interpreted as unelected appointments by a Government who might even be tempted to pack the Lords?

Nicholas Clegg: As I specified earlier, all we are envisaging is that if future Prime Ministers wish to appoint Ministers, they must make sure that those Ministers are for the duration of their ministerial office
	held to account by either this place or the other place, and that one way of achieving that objective, which is to enhance and strengthen the accountability of the Executive to the legislature, is to allow Prime Ministers in a small number of cases to appoint Ministers on a supernumerary basis for a temporary period during the time that they hold ministerial office.

Jesse Norman: A reform of the House of Lords is undoubtedly needed, but this is not a reform measure. It contemplates the abolition of the House of Lords and, with that, reduced diversity and reduced expertise in our public life. Why did not the Deputy Prime Minister use this opportunity genuinely to reform the House of Lords by adopting the Bill of the noble Lord Steel, which would remedy many of the deficits that currently exist?

Nicholas Clegg: In many respects the provisions of Lord Steel’s Bill are in part covered by the proposals that we are putting forward. For instance, one of the central planks of his Bill is that there should be an independent statutory appointments commission. That is exactly what is envisaged in this Bill. Another part of Lord Steel’s Bill provides for retirement of existing Members of the House of Lords. That has been taken up by the Leader of the Lords already. I do not think the ideas in Lord Steel’s Bill are incompatible with the longer-term reforms that we are proposing today.

Geraint Davies: How can someone elected for 15 years be democratically accountable if they cannot stand for election again?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, every time that has been looked at on a cross-party basis, the conclusion has been reached that in order to entrench rather than undermine the difference between the other place and this House, it is best to do so by giving any elected Members of a reformed House of Lords a long, non-renewable term so that they are not subject to the normal short-term temptations of party politics, to which some of us might be subject in this place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I remind the Deputy Prime Minister and the House that the Japanese recently reformed their upper House from an appointed House to an elected House? That led to a huge loss of talent, a situation where the upper House has a complete veto over most legislation of the lower elected House, and legislative stalemate. Would we not be very foolish to embark on these reforms?

Nicholas Clegg: First, I do not accept the principal assertion that if someone has the audacity to stand for election, somehow they do not have talent. That conclusion would not be favourable to anyone in the House. The assumption that wisdom and expertise can be possessed only by those who have not subjected themselves to election is an assumption that I have always found curious. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to what happened in Japan, but he should look at bicameral systems across the democratic world that manage a relationship between one Chamber and the other perfectly well, even though there is election to both.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is obviously right for a Government to proceed on a basis of consensus, given that this is a major constitutional change and all three parties supported it in their last manifestos, as the Deputy Prime Minister rightly pointed out. I hope that across the House Members will do their best, when scrutinising the Bill, to ensure that it becomes law so that the next elections can take place in 2015, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Does he agree that although it is important to proceed on the basis of consensus, there is also a danger that proceeding on too much consensus could lead to the lowest common denominator and a Bill being introduced that no one supports? There is already a danger that it will offend people who want a fully elected House and offend everybody who is not a member of the Church of England. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the lessons of the AV referendum is that if people compromise too far, no one agrees with them and their proposals do not get anywhere?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course we need to get the balance right in seeking to get as much support for these measures as possible. Hon. Members should remember that what we have published today was preceded by several meetings of a cross-party committee where although there was not consensus on everything, there was a considerable degree of consensus. I pay tribute to Members on the Opposition Front Bench who played an active and constructive role in that, but as I said in my opening statement, this is a Government measure and the Government are determined to act.

Martin Vickers: Like my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I broadly welcome the proposals, which seem to be a natural extension of the democratic process. However, it is important that electors identify with their representatives and the area they represent. People generally do not identify with the English regions. I urge the Government to rule out election by regions and consider election by our historic counties.

Nicholas Clegg: We had precisely that discussion in the cross-party committee and, for the exact reason the hon. Gentleman sets out, we believe that the best basis on which to proceed—we will remit the exact details to an independent panel of academics and experts—is to have clusters of counties, because they are, quite literally, a familiar territory and a familiar landscape for millions of voters up and down the country and should be the building blocks of the large constituencies or districts that elected members of a reformed House of Lords would represent.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, but given that a poll released today shows that 74% of people are against unelected bishops having a place in our legislature, including 70% of Christians, and given that expertise and wisdom are not the monopoly of any one religion, will he look again at that aspect of the reform?

Nicholas Clegg: I hear the hon. Lady’s strength of feeling on the issue and respect it, but the fact is that we have an established Church, which has always been reflected in its representation in the House
	of Lords. As I said earlier, leaders of other denominations are very supportive of some form of continuation of that representation, even though it will be on a much smaller scale than is presently the case.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues who wish to speak, so I reiterate the merits of economy and self-restraint.

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend was a Member of the European Parliament, which moved from being an appointed body to an elected one and, over time, has demanded more and more powers, reflecting its democratic mandate. He is very consistent in saying that that will not happen in the case of a reformed House of Lords, but how can he build in some assurances to that effect?

Nicholas Clegg: Those powers of the European Parliament were ultimately changed because of a negotiation between it and national Governments. The conclusion we have reached, and which several other committees and cross-party commissions that have looked at this in the past have also reached, is that the way to avoid opening that Pandora’s box is simply by asserting that the balance of power will remain as it is and as reflected in the Parliament Acts. That is exactly what we are proposing.

Mike Gapes: The Deputy Prime Minister has clearly had a difficult few weeks. May I give him some advice? I suggest that when he leaves the House today he speeds to the airport and gets a plane first to Sweden and then to New Zealand so that he can see how effective unicameral Parliaments work, and then he can come back with a different proposal.

Nicholas Clegg: I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should come forward with a proposal to abolish the other place altogether.

Mike Gapes: indicated assent.

Nicholas Clegg: That would probably meet an even more noisy reception than the balanced package that we have put forward today.

Andrew George: Would my right hon. Friend like to state clearly for the House what he believes the primary purpose of the second Chamber to be? Following the previous question, if the second Chamber did not exist, would he seek to create one?

Nicholas Clegg: The House of Lords now, and a reformed House of Lords in the future, would fulfil its task of review and scrutiny of Government business and Government legislation. I am not a unicameralist, although a good case can be made for it and, as was mentioned earlier, there are plenty of mature democracies that have only one Chamber. However, I believe that the checks and balances in a mature democracy are best met by two chambers.

Sandra Osborne: It will seem very strange in the 21st century for only one faith and one Church to be represented in the reformed House of Lords, bearing in mind that that Church represents only England and not Scotland and the other
	nations of the UK. Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the national Church of Scotland and other churches and faiths being included in some way, which I think is very important?

Nicholas Clegg: I sought to answer those concerns earlier. What we are trying to do—it is not an easy balance to strike—is to introduce reform while maintaining a certain degree of continuity with where we have come from. That is why we arrived at the decision—I stress again that it was arrived at on a cross-party basis in the Committee that I chaired—that it was best to leave things broadly as they are but, as I have said, on a much smaller scale: 12 representatives in future, rather than 26.

Bob Stewart: How can those elected to the other place remain, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister, “one step removed from…day to day party politics”, when every third election Members of the second Chamber will compete for votes with all of us in our constituencies?

Nicholas Clegg: That is a rather good argument for the case, which was criticised earlier, of non-renewable terms: such Members will not stand again or, of course, in the same constituencies. We will have constituencies—certainly, after the boundaries are changed—where each of us represents just over 70,000-odd; they will seek to represent half a million-odd. It will be a completely different contest, held on a different mandate, under a different system, for a different term, and I believe that millions of British voters will be easily able to distinguish between one and the other and to keep the two separate in their own minds.

Stephen McCabe: I think that this is the wrong priority at the wrong time, but if the Deputy Prime Minister is confident that we need another constitutional adventure, why does he not test whether that is the will of the House?

Nicholas Clegg: The final Bill, which we will bring forward after it has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, will come to this House for a vote.

Stephen McCabe: Now. I mean now.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman says “now”, but we have been criticised in the past for pushing forward with changes too quickly and not subjecting them to sufficient scrutiny. What we are doing now is moving very deliberately, very methodically and as consensually as possible, presenting a Bill with our best guess of what would work legislatively; keeping the options on some key issues open in the White Paper; and then inviting a cross-party Joint Committee to subject that to full scrutiny in the months ahead. I do not think that we can be criticised either for moving too fast or for seeking to escape from proper scrutiny.

Daniel Poulter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hereditary principle is wrong in principle? Whatever comes out of these reforms, will he ensure that people do not take
	part in the democratic process as a right of birth, and that people should be either elected or appointed to that Chamber?

Nicholas Clegg: That is exactly what we propose: that either by election or appointment, but not by heredity, people will be represented in a reformed House of Lords.

Fiona Mactaggart: As someone who wishes the Deputy Prime Minister well in this effort, may I ask him, first, why he believes that the Parliament Act, which, unlike the written constitutions that other bicameral countries have, is not entrenched, will prevent conflict between this House and the other place? Secondly, what are his specific proposals to reduce the risk of conflict between Members who are elected for the same territory? Has he looked at non-geographic constituencies for the other place?

Nicholas Clegg: The idea proposed in the Bill—again, I really should stress that this is not some sort of new idea but a repetition and a re-presentation of an idea that many people have proposed in the past—is that the geographical mandates are so different that any meaningful overlap cannot really occur. The hon. Lady refers to the Parliament Act, but the Parliament Acts are there to resolve conflicts where they become firmly entrenched, and we believe that the provisions of the Parliament Acts should remain in place.

John Stevenson: I just want a little further clarification on a question that one of my hon. Friends raised. Is it intended that elections to the new House of Lords will coincide with general elections? What will happen if the date of a general election drops out of the five-year cycle?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, the idea is that they should be held on the same day if, for exceptional reasons, there were to be a change in the fixed rhythm that we are seeking to enshrine in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. We have set out provisions in the Bill and the White Paper to ensure that there is at least a minimum period during which elected Members of a reformed House of Lords could continue to serve.
	Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): Constitutional reform is not a priority of my constituents; they showed that, not least, in the AV referendum result recently, as did many others. I wonder why the Deputy Prime Minister is so keen to keep appointed Members of the new Chamber. Is it perhaps because he knows that it is the only way of getting Lib Dems elected back into Parliament after the next election?

Nicholas Clegg: That is a rather tired point to make at this stage of the debate. I agree that it is not a priority, but the hon. Gentleman none the less made a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote and, indeed, to reform of the House of Lords. He shakes his head, but let me read out to him this commitment from the Labour manifesto:
	“At the end of the next Parliament one third of the House of Lords will be elected; a further one third of members will be
	elected at the general election after that. Until the final stage, the representation of all groups should be maintained in equal proportions to now.”
	We are introducing that idea of making changes by thirds in the draft legislation that we have proposed. I hope that he would welcome that instead of trying to make somewhat feeble political points.
	Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): With a democratic Chamber having been endorsed in all three major political parties’ manifestos, and indeed appearing in the coalition agreement, what reassurance can the Deputy Prime Minister give to this House that he will do everything he possibly can and use every possible mechanism to ensure that we have the first elections to the second Chamber in 2015?

Nicholas Clegg: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I have sought to explain that we are determined to act to ensure that the first elections to a reformed House of Lords take place in 2015, but not for want of trying to create genuine cross-party consensus on the way to proceed. That is why we held the meetings of the cross-party committee and why we are putting the Bill and the White Paper out to the wider scrutiny of a Joint Committee. There is ample opportunity for everyone to make their contributions, but, as he rightly implies, at the end of the day this Government must act and will act.
	Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): As the Deputy Prime Minister headed off towards the high savannah with his bag of fudge, was he at all worried by the sound of tumbleweed blowing behind him as he spoke? Why did he not have the guts to go for a proposal that I believe in, and that he really believes in, which is a 100% elected second Chamber with no prime ministerial cronies and no assisted places scheme for Anglican bishops?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course there is a compelling case, for which I have argued for a very long time, for a fully elected House of Lords. However, anyone who takes even a cursory look at the unhappy history of attempts to reform the House of Lords will conclude that one of the great problems occurred when people reached too far and made the best the enemy of the good. It would be much easier to take seriously the hon. Gentleman’s rather pious admonitions in favour of 100% if he had delivered more than 0% of elections in the 13 years when his party was in power.
	Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome the broad thrust of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, the draft Bill and the White Paper, but ask politely whether the only 80:20 split that is of any significance to the success of this legislation is the 80:20 split on the Benches behind him, with 80% against his proposals and 20% in favour.

Nicholas Clegg: As I said, all the parties’ manifestos are committed to reform of the House of Lords. They differ slightly, but they are all based on the simple principle that there would be a stronger, better, more legitimate Chamber doing its work on behalf of the British people more effectively if there were greater democratic accountability—and that is exactly what we
	are proposing. However, I acknowledge that the debate should now continue by way of the Joint Committee.

Dave Watts: Given that recent events demonstrate that the British people want to retain first past the post, why is the Deputy Prime Minister insistent that the second Chamber will not be elected under that system? Could it be because it is in his party’s interests?

Nicholas Clegg: No. It really is worth looking at the history of the cross-party commissions and Committees that have considered this matter in the past, which by the way have been chaired by politicians from all the major parties. Almost all of them came to the conclusion that if we want to retain the precious difference between one House and the other, it should be reflected in a different electoral system.

William Bain: How sustainable does the Deputy Prime Minister believe it is to create a hybrid Chamber with two classes of Member, one in five of whom will be present without the approval of the electorate? Would it not be much more sensible and durable to create an entirely elected second Chamber?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, I have a lot of sympathy in principle with the argument for a wholly elected Chamber. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because there is not much experience to support his case. Holyrood shows that elected representatives who have different mandates—in this case there would be elected and appointed representatives —are none the less able to co-exist and to do a job collectively on behalf of the British people.

Fourth Carbon Budget

Christopher Huhne: Today I am announcing that the Government propose to set an ambitious target in law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change.
	Signing up to an ambitious fourth carbon budget will result in no additional costs to consumers during this Parliament. We will, however, undertake a review of progress in early 2014 to ensure that our carbon targets are in line with those of the European Union. We are working up a package of measures, to be announced by the end of the year, to help energy-intensive industries adjust to the low-carbon industrial transformation while remaining competitive.
	By agreeing to the level proposed by the Committee on Climate Change, we are demonstrating our desire to drive the changes needed to turn the UK into a dynamic, low-carbon economy that is attractive to investors in the new and growing low-carbon sectors. We are also sending a clear signal to the international community that the UK is committed to the low-carbon economy. That will help us to reach agreement in Europe on moving to a 30% emissions reduction target and build momentum towards a legally binding global climate change deal.
	The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. It also requires Governments to set carbon budgets, which are limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the UK for consecutive five-year periods. Carbon budgets must be set at least three budget periods in advance. They are designed to put emission reductions on an appropriate and cost-effective pathway to our 2050 target. The first three carbon budgets were set in 2009, following advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change. The fourth carbon budget, which sets the limit on emissions for the five-year period from 2023 to 2027, has to be set in law by the end of June 2011.
	As advised by the Committee on Climate Change, the level that we propose setting in law would mean that net emissions over the fourth carbon budget period should not exceed 1,950 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is a 50% reduction from 1990 levels. As required by the 2008 Act, once the fourth carbon budget has been set in law, we will publish a report setting out the policies and proposals required in the medium and long term to meet the budget, building on the strong foundation provided by our existing policies. That will take the form of the revised Government carbon plan later this year, following the publication of the interim version in March.
	The Committee on Climate Change advised that we should aim to meet the budget through emissions reductions in the UK, rather than by relying on carbon trading, such as under the EU emissions trading system or the purchase of international credits from projects abroad. We will aim to reduce emissions domestically as far as is practical and affordable, but we also intend to keep our carbon trading options open, to maintain maximum flexibility and minimise costs in the medium to long term. Given the uncertainty involved in looking so far ahead, that is a pragmatic approach.
	Under the Climate Change Act, emissions reductions by the UK’s industrial and power sectors are determined by the UK’s share of the EU emissions trading scheme cap. That protects the UK industrial and power sectors from exceeding EU requirements. However, if the EU ETS cap is insufficiently ambitious, disproportionate strain could be placed on sectors outside the EU ETS, such as transport. To overcome that problem, and to provide clearer signals for businesses and investors, the Government will review progress towards the EU emissions goal in early 2014. If at that point our domestic commitments place us on a different trajectory from the one agreed by our partners in the EU under the ETS, we will revise up our budget as appropriate to align it with the actual EU trajectory. In line with the coalition agreement, the Government will continue to argue for an EU move to a 30% target for 2020, and for ambitious action in the 2020s.
	As part of the transition to a low-carbon economy, we need to ensure that energy-intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business. Before the end of the year, we will announce a package of measures for the energy-intensive businesses whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies. Rising electricity costs pose a risk to those businesses’ sectors, which are critical to our growth agenda. We will therefore take steps to reduce the impact of Government policy on the cost of electricity for those businesses, allowing them to continue to play their part in delivering our green industrial transformation. In that way, we will ensure that those sectors remain internationally competitive and send a clear message that the UK is open for business.
	It is important to stress that the UK’s existing policies already put us on track to meet the first three carbon budgets. They also provide a strong foundation for the fourth carbon budget, implying no additional near-term costs. We are reforming the electricity market, making homes and businesses more energy-efficient through the green deal, ensuring that new homes are built to a high energy efficiency standard, encouraging the uptake of ultra-low carbon cars and setting up a green investment bank.
	Meeting the 1,950 million tonnes target that we propose for the 2023 to 2027 period is ambitious but achievable. By providing long-term clarity for investors, the fourth carbon budget places the UK at the leading edge of the global low-carbon industrial transformation. It will set Britain on the path to green growth, establish our competitive advantage in the most rapidly growing sectors of the world economy, generate jobs and export opportunities in those sectors, maintain energy security and protect our economy from oil price volatility. It is a framework not just for action on climate but for growth and prosperity.

Meg Hillier: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement this afternoon. May I make it very clear that we welcome the fact that the Government have finally made a decision on the fourth carbon budget? We know that it has been a rocky week for him, as his colleague the Business Secretary sought a very
	different decision on this issue. We also know the many battles that he has lost within Government on the green agenda, so I congratulate him on this progress. I welcome the fact that he has not, after all, ducked the chance to answer questions on this important matter and is here before the House today.
	I need to pick up on a point that the right hon. Gentleman made. He talked about our being on track to meet the first three carbon budgets, but I do not really think that is thanks to the current Government. We have seen a go-slow from him on green progress. Can he reassure us that he, the Treasury and the Business Secretary are united in delivering on these challenging targets? Can he be sure that he at least has the support of the Prime Minister?
	The importance of this decision cannot be overstated, and I shall not repeat what the Secretary of State clearly laid out on the rationale behind the Climate Change Act 2008, which was established under the previous Government. However, I am puzzled about the 2014 review that he announced, because it introduces new uncertainty for those investing in the country’s greener future and breaks with the five-year cycle. He has already failed to provide business certainty by delaying the green investment bank and pulling the rug from underneath the solar industry. It is therefore essential that the scope of that review is clarified so that it does not do the same.
	With those budgets now agreed, the Government must deliver on policies to meet them. As I have said, we have seen over the course of this year the Government failing to deliver on their green promises. The long-awaited green investment bank is unable to borrow till 2015—no rush there!—and it is the subject of yet more disagreements. Confidence in the renewables sector was shaken by a hasty and ill-conceived revision of the feed-in tariff, and of course, the commitment to zero-carbon homes was scrapped with no notice.
	The right hon. Gentleman’s confidence in his record belies the facts. He needs to focus on his Department and on the detail of this agenda, which is very important to the future not just of the UK, but of the world. For the UK to meet those targets, we need a clear plan from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a strong foundation, which we need, but he needs to get real and to deliver on that.
	We cannot meet our targets without a major reduction in domestic emissions. It is therefore critical that the Government make the improvements to the Energy Bill that the Opposition have demanded. Most importantly, they need to be clear on what carbon reductions the green deal will deliver, which, as we said last week, cannot be left to the market to decide.
	Policy needs to be joined-up if we are to have the green industrial revolution that this country needs. We are clear that there is cross-party agreement on the carbon-reduction trajectory, but I should like to ask a few detailed questions of the Secretary of State. What will be the purpose and scope of the 2014 review, which I have already highlighted? Is there a prospect that the Government will weaken the targets that he announced today, or is he suggesting that they can only be tightened? What are the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	doing to support energy-intensive industries? When will he have more detail on that? He alluded to that, but we need more detail.
	Will the Government introduce clearer aims for the green deal, so that we can be clear on how it will contribute to the necessary emissions reductions? When will we see the national policy statements, including on nuclear? Will that happen before the summer? When will the revised carbon plan be published? Will the Secretary of State and his Department consult widely on that?
	After scrapping the grant funding for wave and tidal—we still await the renewables obligation certificates review—how will the UK gain a competitive edge in wave and tidal energy, in which we should be groundbreaking? Will the Secretary of State introduce an accelerated timetable for the trial and deployment of industrial-scale carbon capture and storage for coal and gas?
	Does the Secretary of State agree with the Committee on Climate Change that we need to be more explicit in our support for new nuclear and onshore wind? Finally, what plans do the Government have for introducing road pricing, as suggested by the Committee? Has he consulted the Transport Secretary? Is that a policy for the next Parliament, or is there an urgent need to legislate for vehicle use now?

Christopher Huhne: Perhaps I would be forgiven for wondering whether the hon. Lady and I have been living in the same country for the past few years. Given the picture that she is painting of policies that have been put in place to deliver on carbon budgets, she should perhaps remember that our inheritance after 13 years of the previous Labour Government is that our renewable sector is 25th out of 27 EU member states. That is not a record of which the hon. Lady can be proud. As for efforts to be made, for example, on energy efficiency, it took this Government to introduce the Energy Bill, which legislates for the green deal, which is the most comprehensive attempt to deal with energy saving in future.
	Since the hon. Lady asked, I can assure her that the carbon budget has been approved unanimously by the Cabinet and has the support of the Business Secretary, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. It is an important commitment by the Government, because it is the first commitment beyond the period for which the EU has legislated. Unlike the previous Labour Government’s three carbon budgets, this one goes beyond what the EU requires of us. We have set it according to our own domestic legislative framework and with our own domestic legislative agenda.
	The 2014 review will be simple and clear. On the traded sector, which is crucial to our international competitiveness, we will review what is happening in the rest of the EU, because it is appropriate that we move at the same pace as the sector there. The hon. Lady mentioned that the green investment bank can borrow in 2015, which is crucial because the second part of this decade will see the greatest need for borrowing powers to ensure the installation of renewable and other low-carbon energy. I am astonished by her description of what has happened so far under this Government. We have set aside more than £800 million for a renewable heat incentive, and we are legislating for a carbon price floor.
	Despite the Opposition’s warm words, in 13 years of a Labour Government not a single piece of turf was turned in order to install a single new nuclear reactor, yet work has already begun at Hinkley Point. The sense of urgency in dealing with the climate change challenge displayed by this Government is of an entirely different order of magnitude. On clean coal and gas, about which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and some of his friends are particularly concerned, the Government, in an extremely tough and difficult expenditure round in which we have to clear up the mess inherited from the Labour party, found £1 billion to set aside for the first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage project. In 13 years under Labour, no money was put aside and no planning was done for low-carbon growth.
	We will proceed with our national planning statements, and there will be an interim review by the nuclear regulator, Mike Weightman, which I anticipate coming shortly. The hon. Lady asked a detailed question about road pricing. We have made it clear already that there will be no plans for that in this Parliament. I repeat, however, that we are set on a road that will unlock enormous opportunities for British business, with a low-carbon economy and high growth.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. I ask hon. Members to respect the convention that they do not question the Secretary of State if they were not here for the entirety of his statement.

Tim Yeo: This is a most welcome decision by the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are considerable potential economic advantages for Britain in leading the world towards a lower carbon economy? Does he further agree that, although it is understandable that the Government should wish to retain the option of purchasing credits in order to achieve the target, the sooner that option is ruled out, the greater the incentive will be for British business to invest in low-carbon technology?

Christopher Huhne: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, who has made a powerful case in the past for a low-carbon economy. This is no longer a set of cottage industries. We are talking about a sector of the British economy that employs 910,000 people, which is growing extremely rapidly in a major world market, and which offers us enormous opportunities. I have no doubt that to those who move first and furthest will come the great advantages of the low-carbon economy. On the point about purchasing credits, having in a misspent youth practised economic forecasting and knowing about the difficulties of getting forecasts right one or two years in advance, I think it makes pragmatic sense to preserve a little flexibility when looking ahead as far as 2023-27.

Joan Ruddock: We are on track to meet our first three carbon budgets because of the policies put in place and pioneered by the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman is yet to deliver on any of his flagship policies. When he speaks of renewables, does he not have some concern about the
	Ernst and Young report showing that only 13% of UK-based corporates, financiers and clean-tech companies believe that the coalition will create an environmental success this year?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. She has followed this area for many years and has enormous expertise in it. However, if she is going to claim the credit for meeting the current carbon budget on the back of the previous Government’s record, she should be aware that an important contributor to the 28% reduction in our carbon emissions since 1990 has been the depth of the recession. I am glad that she is at last owning up to the impact that those on the Opposition Benches had on our economy. On the Ernst and Young report, we are determined to set a framework that provides certainty and clarity for investors, and we will do so particularly with the electricity market reform that we shall be announcing later.

John Redwood: How exactly does the Secretary of State propose to ensure that the glass and ceramics, and steel and chemicals industries, which are high energy users, are not damaged by the taxes and regulations that he is proposing today?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The energy-intensive work group that we have set up between my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will come forward with a set of measures by the end of the year. That is a clear commitment. As he knows, there are a number of ways to help energy-intensive industries, including the free allocation of units under the EU emissions trading scheme and encouraging a move towards the use of biomass and biofuels, for example. We are looking at all those measures to ensure that we can balance the concerns of the energy-intensive industries as well as make substantial progress towards the low-carbon economy.

Malcolm Wicks: The climate change targets that the last Parliament legislated for were arguably the most ambitious thing that any Parliament in this country has ever legislated for. I certainly welcome the broad thrust of the coalition Government’s proposals today, even if the Secretary of State failed to understand that turning over turf during his term of office depended on four years of preparatory work, which I am happy to discuss with him.
	Many of the goods that we consume in Britain used to be manufactured in Britain. They are now manufactured in places such as China, thereby producing carbon emissions, and then imported into this country. Those carbon emissions in China and elsewhere occur only because of demand from western societies such as ours. Given that we are talking about a global phenomenon, does the Secretary of State have any ideas for how Europe as a whole can use its influence to bring about appropriate carbon reduction policies in places such as China, India and elsewhere?

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Gentleman’s question is an interesting one, as I would expect, given his background as an Energy Minister and his expertise in this field. Wherever one goes in the world, people will say that everyone else is working much less hard on the low-carbon
	agenda than they are. That is the prevailing myth. I was recently speaking to my counterpart in Australia, who said that the entire debate there is about how only the Australians are dealing with climate change and no one else is. The reality is that enormous progress is being made on this agenda right across the board, including in India and China. The five-year plan that the Chinese have just established is enormously ambitious. Six of the largest renewables companies in the world are now Chinese. The Chinese are making an enormous commitment to offshore wind, as well as in more conventional sectors such as nuclear. They are now the dominant player in solar photovoltaics, having taken the lead from Germany, so I simply do not accept that this is a world where we are moving ahead of other people. We are moving ahead together, but it will be the people who move furthest and fastest who get the best prizes.

Laura Sandys: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he publishes the plan in the next couple of months, it will include an industrial plan that supports the green economy, not only in the energy sector but right across the manufacturing sector in areas such as white goods manufacturing and the production of electric cars? Will he also ensure that his Department and BIS provide the support to ensure that we have all the necessary skills and investment?

Christopher Huhne: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know that it is a heartfelt one because of her commitments to her constituency. I remember her being present when I opened the wind farm off Thanet. There will be enormous opportunities as a result of our proposals. We set aside £60 million for port transformation in the comprehensive spending review, for example, and we now have some substantial commitments of interest, including from Mitsubishi in Scotland, from GE and from Siemens in Humberside. Vestas is also talking about an area close to my hon. Friend’s constituency in Kent. I believe that we will see an enormous amount of investment in those crucial industries. Our carbon plan will focus on meeting our carbon objectives, but the work that BIS, in particular, is doing to lead the charge for the carbon economy is very important, and I am backing it completely.

Barry Gardiner: I congratulate the Secretary of State on stepping up to the plate on this issue; it is really good that he has established that it is he, and not the Business Secretary, who is in the driving seat. I want to ask him about long-term clarity for investors. He mentioned that that was key, but he will appreciate that those wishing to invest in gas now risk seeing their investments stranded after 2025. It is extremely important, when addressing that question, that he review the proposals on electricity market reform to ensure that those investments can be maintained.

Christopher Huhne: We have every intention of ensuring security of supply, and gas will perform an important role in that regard, in the short run and in the medium run. Given the worldwide potential for the exploitation of unconventional gas from shale and other formations, it might well be the case that gas will play a long-term part in our energy mix as well, through clean coal and gas, and carbon capture and storage. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, however, and we will not
	have stranded assets of the kind he describes. We will be introducing our proposals in the White Paper on electricity market reform.

Andrew George: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement to the House today, and his commitment to ensuring that the UK will be the first country in Europe to have legally binding emissions targets beyond 2020. Further to the point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), what can his Department do to ensure that the green growth industries are able to take full advantage of the opportunities that this statement and the Government’s policy will provide?

Christopher Huhne: We are determined that there should be enormous growth opportunities for low-carbon goods and services in the UK, and I would like to highlight two things that our Department can deliver. The first is the certainty required to enable investment in the replacement of ageing power plant that we will need over the next 10 years. Ofgem has estimated a figure of £200 billion, which is roughly double the normal level of investment in the UK, so this will be important in powering the recovery over the next few years. The second is the provisions in the Energy Bill, the Second Reading of which took place last week. The green deal, which is set out in the Bill, will provide the opportunity for an enormous number of new jobs. We calculate that we will move up from the present figure of 27,000 jobs in the insulation sector to 100,000 by 2015 and that, at its peak, the policy will result in 250,000 jobs right across the industry, which will have to retrofit every home in the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the enormous job-creating potential for these industries, and we will keep that matter very much in the forefront of our minds.

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on coming out on the right side of the scrap in Cabinet over the fourth carbon budget. Does he accept, however, that according to the Climate Change Act 2008, a fourth carbon budget with a review in 2014 will not really be a fourth carbon budget in law? Can he confirm that a review in 2014 would not change the law as far as the fourth carbon budget was concerned? If that is the case, why should there be a review?

Christopher Huhne: The key point of having a review is to make sure that in the tradeable sector, where we have industries exposed to international competition—and we want them to thrive—industries are not exposed to unique costs that will not be imposed on the competition in the EU. That is what the review is designed to achieve. Under the Act, any review will have to be preceded by a recommendation from the Climate Change Commission—and we have absolutely no plans to change that, so it will depend on recommendations from that commission.

Christopher Pincher: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s ambitious announcement. I remind him that in evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, Lord Turner said that our carbon targets might lead to an appreciable increase in domestic energy prices. I urge the Secretary of State to roll out the green deal with all speed to ensure that any domestic energy price increase is offset by the energy saving elements of that green deal.

Christopher Huhne: I can assure my hon. Friend that we in the ministerial team are absolutely committed to low-cost, affordable electricity. The last assessment the Department made—at the time of the annual energy statement, and we will make another at the next such statement—is that the overall impact of our policies, including energy saving and the effects that my hon. Friend mentioned, will add 1% to the cost of household energy bills in 2020. As it happens, that was posited on a world oil price of $80 a barrel. As he knows, the oil price has moved substantially beyond that. With oil prices and associated gas prices higher than $100 a barrel, our estimate is that our policies will save money for the British household. I am not saying that British households will not face increases in the cost of gas and electricity in future; what I am saying is that the policy mix of energy saving and low-carbon electricity generation will give a better deal to British households than would reliance on imports of variable fossil fuels from volatile parts of the world.

Michael Meacher: Does the Secretary of State accept that purchasing carbon offsets abroad as a means of meeting carbon emission reduction targets in the UK is deeply flawed on grounds of additionality, leakage and uncertain duration and that, in any case, they do not achieve the ostensible objective of decarbonising Britain? What precise proportion of the 29% cut in carbon emissions planned between now and 2027 do the Government intend or expect to be achieved via carbon offsets?

Christopher Huhne: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we intend to try to meet all the reductions we have set out from our domestic activity. That is the clear intention of setting out the fourth carbon budget as we have. However, given the enormous uncertainties of making projections so far in advance, it would not be sensible for us to rule out the flexibility afforded by carbon trading at the relevant time.

Tony Baldry: If my right hon. Friend is going to meet these targets by reducing emissions here, it will mean reducing a lot of emissions from domestic housing. Will he give us more information about how he is going to achieve that with existing housing, and what exactly does he mean when he talks of ensuring that new homes are built to a high energy efficiency standard? What is a high energy efficiency standard in relation to zero carbon?

Christopher Huhne: My hon. Friend knows that the lead Department on zero-carbon homes is the Department for Communities and Local Government. It has set out its thoughts on this issue. I am pleased to see that we intend to continue with the substantial improvement in energy efficiency standards in the 2013 and 2016 building regulations. On that basis, we will move quickly towards a zero-carbon homes standard, which will make a major contribution to meeting our long-term carbon reduction goals of 80% by 2050.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the Government’s acceptance of a 50% emissions cut by 2025, but like others I am deeply concerned that behind a headline that looks so good in theory is something that risks being a sham. In reality, a significant proportion
	of the reduction will be happening in other countries. What impact does the Secretary of State expect that to have on the “green industrial transformation” that he says that he wants? Such a transformation will not happen if we pay other countries to do the work for us.

Christopher Huhne: I can add very little to what I have already said to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). We are, in fact, dealing with a period that is very far off—well beyond the normal range of economic forecasting—and it is sensible for us to exercise a measure of flexibility in the way in which we achieve our aim. However, I can assure the hon. Lady—as I assured the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton—that we intend to meet this budget from our domestic activity. That is absolutely in line with everything that I have said about encouraging low-carbon goods and services.
	The hon. Lady should also bear in mind that even the flexibility that is afforded by trading will be limited by the existence or otherwise of far cheaper opportunities to ameliorate the position by mitigating carbon emissions outside the country rather than inside it. I believe that the more we invest in the industries that I have mentioned, and the more “learning by doing” that we do, the greater will be the chance of our meeting our targets entirely from domestic activity, which is what we intend to do.

Zac Goldsmith: I strongly welcome the statement. What contribution does the Secretary of State think demand-side measures are likely to make in a reformed electricity market, particularly given the focus on negawatts?

Christopher Huhne: The concept of negawatts is very important. Let me explain to those who have not followed the debate that it means we should be able to trade into the electricity system savings in energy and not merely electricity generation. That concept is part of the consultation that we are currently considering about electricity market reform, and I believe that it will be a crucial part of our reform proposals. There are several different aspects, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed when he sees the results.

Simon Danczuk: The proposals on climate change are extremely important. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that they will receive his full attention over the coming days and weeks?

Christopher Huhne: I can indeed.

Sajid Javid: The strategy announced today contains a “ripcord”: the targets will be reviewed in 2014 if they prove to be more aggressive than those of our European Union partners. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be important to energy-intensive industries in Britain which are themselves important to our future prosperity and the creation of jobs?

Christopher Huhne: I do. I noted the criticism from Opposition Members, and I refer them to a bit of socialist history. The attempt to build socialism in one country under Joe Stalin was not an unalloyed success, and, similarly, an
	attempt to build climate change policies in one country would not be an unalloyed success. We must keep a weather eye on the competitiveness of our industries and on what is going on overseas, but we have set a very clear direction. We will be ambitious in our climate change goals, and I am determined for us to drive the growth of these new opportunities and industries as a result.

Gavin Shuker: The Secretary of State has led the House to believe that a review of progress early in 2014 was intended to ensure that the emissions trading system trajectory agreed by the EU could be revised up. Can he rule out the possibility that those ambitious targets will be revised down?

Christopher Huhne: Were our EU partners to move even further and faster than we are currently suggesting, we might indeed see revision in the other direction, but I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts as much as I do that the chances of that happening appear to be remote at the moment. I think that we are making progress with our aim to achieve a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. A number of other countries have joined us in the call for that, including, recently, Denmark, Sweden and Spain, and I am confident that we will make further progress among our partners in the months to come.

Jason McCartney: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Businesses in my part of west Yorkshire are already playing a major part in the green economy. David Brown Engineering in Lockwood make the gears for offshore wind turbines and is very appreciative of a £2 million investment from the regional growth fund for a research centre there; TEV Ltd in Brighouse is investing in air source heat pumps; and the then Conservative-run Kirklees council introduced the warm zone scheme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we cut emissions, the number of green jobs will increase?

Christopher Huhne: I certainly do. I think this presents an enormous opportunity for the future. There will be enormous numbers of jobs in energy saving and in the other low-carbon goods and services, and that will be the case right across the country. There will be no bias towards one region or another—no bias towards London and the south-east, for instance—because homes, and therefore the industrial opportunities, exist everywhere.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State has explained why he is resiling from the Committee on Climate Change advice to forgo the carbon trading option, but is he proposing to sidestep any of its other recommendations? Also, do any of his concerns for ensuring the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries and for signalling certainty to investors extend to feeling regret about the adverse impact of the Chancellor’s raid on the CRC scheme?

Christopher Huhne: We have not accepted a number of the other detailed recommendations in the committee’s report, but the trading one is an obvious example. It also asked us to set a target for 2030, and we do not see the need for that. I am not a great believer in intermediate targets when we have a very clear overall carbon budget, but given our commitment to a target figure of 1,950 million
	tonnes for the overall carbon budget for 2023 to 2027, nobody should be in any doubt about the thrust of our policy or our determination to meet our target. I have a very strong preference for achieving what we are actually trying to do, which is to cut carbon emissions, rather than for setting a whole group of intermediate targets, but that we will do.

Gavin Barwell: I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to accept the independent committee’s advice. Further to the question I asked my right hon. Friend on Second Reading of the Energy Bill, can he confirm that the Government report setting out the policies and proposals required to meet the budget will include an assessment of the contribution each will make so that the House can assess the value for money that they offer?

Christopher Huhne: I am concerned to ensure that all our policies offer real value for money. I believe the only way we will be able to hold public consensus behind what is a very ambitious programme of industrial change is if we show we are really ensuring that we get value for taxpayers in each policy we pursue. That is why we had to take the decision we took on solar feed-in tariffs. Although everything was unchanged below two tennis courts-worth, we have had to review the solar tariffs for the larger scale solar because we are determined to get good value for money. That is crucial. I also take on board the fact that the OECD’s latest country report urged us to look at the different implicit carbon prices in our policies across the board. I very much take that to heart and we will look at it. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that we will address value for money, and that it is foremost among our considerations in delivering good policy.

Geraint Davies: Does the Energy Secretary believe that it would help to achieve his carbon targets if the speed limit for cars were lowered, or does he think the speed limit for cars should be raised, as do the Transport Secretary and, presumably, the Energy Secretary’s wife?

Christopher Huhne: The Transport Secretary has responsibility for these matters, and it is well above my pay grade.

Steve Brine: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the Government’s ambition in this area. Given the critical role local authorities must surely play in delivering their goals, how does the Secretary of State intend to help local councils do their bit?

Christopher Huhne: The most important way in which this Government can help local councils be innovative, creative and imaginative is to get away from telling them what to do from Westminster. We must remove ring-fencing and make sure local councils can take responsibility for their own decisions. As my hon. Friend knows, we have some robust debates about the priorities between different levels of government in Hampshire, and that is as it should be. Those priorities are determined by the councils—whether the county council at Winchester by the Conservatives, or the district council at Eastleigh by the Liberal Democrats. They make different decisions and it is proper that they should then be accountable to local people for those decisions.

Alex Cunningham: I, too, am pleased that we got a statement on this today, but I am anxious about the future and viability of energy-intensive industries, such as those in my constituency which have been the backbone of the north-east England economy. They have done much to reduce emissions already, but what will the Government do to help with transition funding, possibly through the growth fund or other mechanisms, to ensure that such industries can make further change and develop in the future?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the growth fund, which is having a tremendous impact in bringing in a vast amount of private investment where it would not otherwise have been occurring; that is definitely a tremendous innovation. In addition, we are and will be developing the package for the energy-intensive industries, which I mentioned earlier. That is being done with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and it will be coming forward by the end of the year. We want balanced growth so that all parts of the economy can benefit from a robust economy.

David Rutley: I, too, wish to add my thanks to the Government and welcome the steps being taken to move to a low-carbon economy. It is also encouraging to see the great work being done by community groups, particularly Macclesfield Transition Town and Food4Macc in my area, to support these ambitions. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to engage these community groups in helping to achieve these very important targets?

Christopher Huhne: We are keen to engage community groups; the ministerial team does a lot of visits and makes sure that we are talking to members of civil society and, of course, to non-governmental organisations, which have an important influence on community groups. This is also particularly crucial in an area that I know can be controversial, even among those on the Government Benches: proposals for onshore wind. I think that that is a beautiful form of renewable energy, although I know that that opinion is not always shared across the House. It is an important part of our strategy to get community groups involved and owning these policies, and some interesting proposals have been made. For example, the biggest proposal for onshore wind is the Viking proposal for Shetland and it is half-owned by the community group that supports Shetlanders. So I am very much in favour of the sort of engagement that my hon. Friend has rightly suggested.

Nia Griffith: Given his comments today and previously, the Secretary of State is obviously keenly aware of the danger of carbon leakage, particularly if the Government proceed to reduce emissions through unilateral taxation on the energy-intensive industries. So what consideration has he given to an annual assessment of UK emissions on a consumption basis—an assessment taking into consideration imported goods—because that would act as a real incentive for us to reduce our emissions properly here in the UK?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady raises an important issue that people periodically talk about, which is that no matter how well we do in the UK, we are not making a difference to the world as a whole if we are merely
	outsourcing production of carbon-intensive goods to economies such as China. However, I would make two points in response, the first of which is that we should not underestimate the progress being made in economies such as India and China to grapple with and move very fast on this agenda. The Department and the Government are working with the low-carbon pilot areas in China and the developments are truly impressive, so I urge her to look at them. We are aware of this issue, but I do not think that any time soon we will be able to move globally towards a situation where we are taking into account the embedded carbon emissions in trade. The reality is that most of the nearly 200 countries that are members of the United Nations are fiercely protective of their own territorial sovereignty, so it seems likely that our major efforts to tackle climate change will be based on states’ control of their own territorial integrity.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on accepting the ambitious fourth carbon budget recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. His statement highlights how vital it is to increase the EU carbon emission reduction target from 20% to 30% by 2020, so how will the Government redouble their efforts to secure that agreement and, in particular, to get a significant tightening of the EU emissions trading scheme cap?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have made substantial strides in the direction of securing an agreement and a number of countries in the EU are clearly signed up to the 30% ambition level for 2020. A number of other countries would like to go beyond 20%. The European Commission is the key player and one of the points that it is making—rightly I think—is that if we as a European Union were to deliver on just the energy efficiency commitments that we have already made, we could get to a 25% cut in carbon emissions by 2020 without any additional cost. There is a lot of progress to be made on this agenda and I and my ministerial colleagues are pressing that point at all the meetings we attend in Brussels and elsewhere. I believe that we are making good progress.

Jessica Morden: One issue for intensive energy users is the cumulative effect of Government policies on their competitiveness. Has the Minister carried out a full impact assessment of the cumulative effect of climate policies and, if not, will he commit to doing so?

Christopher Huhne: The group that is considering the impact on energy-intensive industries is certainly taking into account all the impacts of policy as well as the other impacts. Obviously, some effects on energy-intensive industry have nothing to do with policy and there are some macro-economic effects, such as the relative competitiveness gained through the improvement in the real exchange rate. We will take account of all those factors when we come to conclusions about the measures necessary to help energy-intensive industries.

Graham Stringer: The Secretary of State has mentioned on a number of occasions the increased number of jobs in the renewables
	sector of the economy. This March, Verso Economics produced a report for the Scottish Parliament that showed that for every job created in the renewables sector 3.7 jobs were destroyed in the rest of the economy. How does he marry that report’s conclusions with the statements he has been making?

Christopher Huhne: For every report that reaches the sort of conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I can point him to other reports that suggest exactly the opposite. The OECD, which is probably the most respected and authoritative of international economic organisations, has done some very good work on green growth. We have had a very important study from Potsdam in co-ordination with a number of leading economists from Oxford and elsewhere that suggests that there are positive growth effects through investment and learning by doing. Recently, I received a very important note from Professor Nick Stern—Lord Stern—arguing that the attempts to see his report as imposing costs on the economy were simply mistaken. He feels very strongly that the move to low-carbon goods and services involves enormous opportunities and that the increase in investment involved can help to power us out of an exceptionally deep recession. That is perhaps a long answer to show that when two economists are in a room, there are sometimes three opinions. None the less, the balance of argument is very much against the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State has made a number of points this afternoon, but one point that came out of the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change was that international aviation and shipping should be included in future carbon budgets. Does he agree with that recommendation?

Christopher Huhne: It is certainly one thing that we intend to consider. It is important, but there are obviously technical issues to be resolved and discussions are ongoing within Government. When we reach a conclusion, we will make an announcement.

Chris Williamson: This issue should transcend party politics, but I regret to say that some of the Secretary of State’s actions do not live up to his rhetoric. This morning, I met representatives from East Midlands airport whose ambition is to make its ground operations carbon-neutral. The plan was to provide 36% of the airport’s energy requirements through a major photovoltaic scheme that has now been made unviable as a result of the wholesale butchery of feed-in tariffs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has abandoned photovoltaic cells as a way of generating energy and what advice can he give to East Midlands airport about its ambition to deliver a carbon-neutral target?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps be aware that the intention of the feed-in tariff scheme was to encourage microgeneration. Any proposal that involves less than two tennis courts-worth of solar photovoltaic cells will be completely unchanged by the review that we have announced, so he is clearly referring to a scheme that is very much bigger than that. All I would say is that we have to look at value for money. I am surprised that Opposition Members think that that is a revolutionary
	concept but it is important to consider value for money. If we had not announced the review, we would have found that a very large part of some of our finest shire counties would, instead of disappearing under oil seed rape or some more conventional crop, have been disappearing under solar photovoltaics. That was not, I am sure, the intention of the Opposition. It certainly is not our intention and that is why we have acted.

William Bain: Does the Secretary of State accept the commission’s finding about seeking a reduction of 44% in emissions from surface transport by 2030 in comparison with the figures for 2008? If he does, will he make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport to put right the cuts in the budgets for electric-powered and hybrid vehicles that were made in the spending review, which put the long-term viability of those industries at risk?

Christopher Huhne: I do not think that the policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has introduced can be characterised in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We recently did some calculations that suggested that, given the prices we have at the petrol pump today, it makes sense to buy an electric vehicle because of the subsidies that the Secretary of State for Transport has announced in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I believe that the framework has been set for very rapid growth in this area and I am confident that that is what we will see.

Paul Flynn: As the continuing and intensifying nightmare of Fukushima has undermined the public’s confidence in nuclear, and because no nuclear power station, old or new, has ever been built on budget, on time or without public subsidy, does the Secretary of State still persist in his belief that nuclear power stations can be built here without public subsidy? If so, will he explain who will pay the billions in insurance and compensation if a major incident occurs? Will it be the industry or, as in Japan now, the taxpayer?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman has a long track record of concern on this subject, which I respect. Some of the answers to his questions will be there when we see the interim and then the final report from the chief nuclear inspector, Mike Weightman. I hope that we can bring that forward very rapidly and then the hon. Gentleman will be able to see for himself. He is right in one respect, on which I entirely agree with him: if there is to be, as the nuclear industry hopes, a nuclear renaissance, it is absolutely crucial that the nuclear industry shows that it can deliver on time and to budget. Investors will not come forward on a repeated basis if that is not the case.
	I can certainly confirm that we will not be providing public subsidy to nuclear and that we see nuclear as part of the energy mix for the future provided that safety concerns are met—we have the Mike Weightman review to be announced shortly—and provided that investors are prepared to come forward. At the moment, the indications are that investors are prepared to come forward provided that we put in place, as I believe the House has already done with the regulatory justification, the necessary steps to facilitate the normal big infrastructure spending that it involves.

Dangerous Driving (Maximum Sentence)

Motion for leave to  bring in  a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Karl Turner: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum sentence for a conviction of dangerous driving from two years to seven years; and for connected purposes.
	Before my election to the House, I worked as a criminal barrister. One of the last cases that I was instructed in was defending a dangerous driver. I recall the grim expression on the face of the Crown Court judge when I got into the mitigation, not because I was wrong to ask for leniency, but because the law gave the judge insufficient discretion to mark the offence with an appropriate punishment. The driving was bad, but not the worst the judge had seen. Nevertheless, it was horrendous driving. I was keen to emphasise that it was not the worst of its kind. I finished my address by asking the judge to allow the defendant full credit for his guilty plea, and sat down knowing that I had done my best for my lay client.
	Coincidently, one of the first cases that I dealt with as a Member of the House concerned the victim of dangerous driving, Katie Harper. Her case motivated me to push for a change in the law. Dangerous driving requires the prosecution to show that the driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. There is no definition of “far below”, but the danger must be either that of injury to any person or serious damage to property. The offence is not made out where the driving is less than truly dangerous.
	The sentences handed down by judges leave victims feeling let down by the justice system when the offender is released from prison after just a few months, by which time the victims have not even started to come to terms with the damage that the offender has caused. Victims of dangerous driving are sometimes left brain damaged, paralysed or with amputations. The perpetrator will of course be punished, but the law does not currently allow the sentencing judge enough discretion to provide anything like the result that victims might expect. However, in the case of a serious assault, such as grievous bodily harm, the sentencing judge has at his disposal the discretion to mark the offence with a sentence that reflects the harm caused to the victim.
	My constituency case helped me understand the real effect on victims of dangerous driving where injury results. In 2009, Katie Harper was a healthy 23-year-old English degree student until she was hit by another car overtaking a line of traffic at seriously excessive speed. Her passenger was her mother, Christine. Katie suffered multiple breaks to her pelvis, two broken arms, facial injury and serious nerve damage to her right leg. Her mother has also been left with permanent injuries after the near-fatal incident. The entire family have suffered. Katie’s father, Paul Harper, retired early from his job as a primary school teacher to provide the round-the-clock support that his wife and daughter need. My constituents’ case is by no means the worst.
	The House will remember the tragic case of Cerys Edwards, an 11-month-old toddler. The Edwards family were the victims of a dangerous driver in 2006. Cerys has needed round-the-clock care since the collision. The driver was doing 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. He lost control of his mother’s Range Rover while overtaking. Cerys was left severely paralysed, brain damaged and reliant on a ventilator to breathe. The dangerous driver was released from prison after just six months. Cerys’s father, Gareth Edwards, is reported to have said, “It just goes to show we don’t have a justice system in this country”, when he heard that the offender had been released.
	Many judges have described in their sentencing remarks their frustration at the inadequacy of the law. In researching my Bill I took the time to seek advice from the Recorder of Hull and East Riding, His Honour Judge Mettyear. Judge Mettyear told me that every judge in the country would, in his view, want to support this proposal. There is a clear anomaly in the law. Dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of two years, whereas causing death by dangerous driving is worth 14 years.
	To highlight the disparity, let us imagine the following situation. Two young men who own powerful cars spend a Saturday afternoon with friends in a park. One suggests to the other that they should have a race. The friends warn them of the danger. One of them is not so keen, but he is heavily encouraged by his girlfriend, who offers to accompany him. He reluctantly takes up the offer and they race through the crowded streets, overtaking each other in the face of oncoming traffic, which has to swerve to avoid collision. They continue at great speed in order to escape the police. As they try to navigate a bend, they lose control. One of them ploughs into a bus stand, causing serious injury. The other manages to swerve to avoid the bus stand but hits a tree. His girlfriend, who is a passenger, is tragically killed. The other driver is lucky and does not cause death, but he leaves his victim paralysed and permanently brain damaged.
	The one who causes the death will face up to 14 years’ imprisonment. The one who leaves the innocent victim paralysed and brain damaged will face a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. This sentence must then be reduced by one third, as credit for pleading guilty, and then further because it is not considered the worst such case that the judge has seen. The offender will serve a matter of a few months in prison, but what sentence does his innocent victim face? In this scenario, the culpability of the driver who caused death was in some
	ways less than the one who was lucky and did not. How is that justice? My motivation is compounded by the forthcoming justice Bill, which proposes to increase the discount for an early guilty plea from one third to 50%, which means that even the worst example of dangerous driving will attract a starting sentence of only 12 months.
	I am grateful for the cross-party support I have received for my Bill. Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and their advice and encouragement has been gratefully received. I am grateful to Louise Casey, the Victims’ Commissioner, for her support and invaluable advice. I have also discussed my proposal with my area chief constable, Tim Hollis, who fully supports my efforts. The charity Brake welcomes the proposals and the AA, Aviva and the RAC have also committed their support.
	I know that my proposal is unlikely to find its way on to the statute book in its current form, but I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will take on board the points that you, Mr Speaker, have allowed me to make. The Bill requires a simple amendment to paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to part 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The effect, however, would be substantial. The Bill would allow judges the discretion to redress the balance in favour of the victim. The proposed legislation addresses an anomaly in the law and offers a proper deterrent. I respectfully invite the House to support it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Karl Turner, Anna Soubry, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr John Leech, Julie Hilling, Chris Evans, John Mann and Andrea Leadsom present the Bill.
	Karl Turner accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 190).

LOCALISM BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)

Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Localism Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(a) the making of provision in relation to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax or stamp duty reserve tax in connection with a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by or under the Act; and
	(b) the making of provision for a body not to be exempt from corporation tax, income tax or capital gains tax where in pursuance of the exercise of functions of the Greater London Authority the body carries on activities for a commercial purpose.—(Robert Neill.)

Localism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 17 January 2011 (Localism Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
	3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
	4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	TABLE
	
		
			   ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings  
			 First day  
			 New Clauses relating to Part 1,  new Schedules relating to Part 1, amendments to Clause 1, amendments to Schedule 1, amendments to Clauses 2 to 10, amendments to Schedule 2, amendments to Clause 11, amendments to Schedule 3, amendments to Clauses 12 to 14, amendments to Schedule 4, amendments to Clauses 15 to 29, new Clauses relating to Part 2,  new Schedules relating to Part 2  and amendments to Clauses 30  to 34. 7.30 pm 
			 New Clauses relating to Part 5, new Schedules relating to Part 5, amendments to Clause 89, amendments to Schedule 8, amendments to Clauses 90 to 96, amendments to Schedules 9 to 11, amendments to Clauses 97 to 101, amendments to Schedule 12, amendments to Clauses 102 to 107, amendments to Schedule 13, amendments to Clauses 108 to 120, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Schedules relating to Part 4, amendments to Clauses 39 to 56, amendments to Schedules 5 and 6, amendments to Clauses 57 to 64, amendments to Schedule 7 and amendments to Clauses 65 to 88. 10.00 pm 
			 Second day  
			 New Clauses relating to Part 3,  new Schedules relating to Part 3, amendments to Clauses 35 to 38, new Clauses relating to tax in connection with provisions of  Parts 6 and 7, new Schedules  relating to tax in connection with provisions of Parts 6 and 7, remaining new Clauses relating to Part 7, remaining new Schedules relating to Part 7, amendments to Clauses 157 to 166, amendments to Schedules 19 and 20, amendments  to Clauses 167 to 169, amendments to Schedule 21, amendments to Clauses 170 to 193, amendments  to Schedule 22, amendments to Clauses 194 and 195, amendments to Schedule 23 and amendments to Clauses 196 to 200. 4.00 pm 
		
	
	
		
			 Remaining new Clauses relating to Part 6, amendments to Clauses 121 to 133, amendments to Schedule 14,amendments to Clauses 134 to 140, amendments to Schedule 15, amendments to Clauses 141 to 150, amendments to Schedule 16, amendments to Clause 151, amendments to Schedule 17, amendments to Clauses 152 to 156, amendments to Schedule 18, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, amendments to Clauses 201 to 203, amendments to Schedule 24, amendments to  Clauses 204 to 207 and remaining proceedings on Consideration. 6.00 pm 
		
	
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	I will briefly introduce the motion. It is delightful to see that so many Committee members have come back for a second round. From the outset of our deliberations on the Bill, we said that we regarded the legislation as something that could benefit from the expertise that exists both within the House and outside.
	We have been true to that statement, and we had a very interesting set of sessions in Committee: 24 sittings and 64 hours’ scrutiny. I probably spent more time during that period in the company of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), at least during waking hours, than I did with my wife—although the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) sort of doubled up on that time. We considered every clause in the Bill and finished its scrutiny with a little time to spare, so we made good progress.
	During the Bill’s passage, we established an atmosphere that was constructive, usually harmonious and often uproarious, even. I do not know whether the remaining stages will live up to the high benchmark that we set, but we should aim to take matters in the same spirit—I certainly intend to—today, tomorrow and, indeed, when the Bill goes to another place. This is a Bill in which there are invested the hopes and expectations of many people outside this place, and we owe it to them to reflect seriously on the matters that are before us and, where we can be constructive, to be so.
	I hope Members will recognise that the large number of Government amendments is testimony to some of my commitments in Committee to reflect seriously on the points that were made and to come back to the House in a constructive way. There have been discussions across the House and with outside bodies in helping to shape that approach, and no doubt they will come out in our debates over the next two days.
	It is comparatively unusual to have two days on Report, but the Bill’s significance and extent justify it. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South and her colleagues will accept that it is appropriate to insert a couple of knives into our proceedings so that we can get on to talk about planning and, in due course, housing. It would be remiss if we did not secure that outcome.
	No doubt we will not agree on everything, and there may be cause for Divisions, but, as in Committee, constructive suggestions will have the opportunity to be reflected on and reflected in the Bill’s further progress in another place.

Barbara Keeley: I will be even more brief. As the Minister suggests, on Report the Government have tabled 234 new clauses and amendments, which is more than the number of clauses in the original Bill, so we have a lot to discuss. I would not say that we have two days. We have ended up with some concerns about the programming of these debates, but it would be more appropriate if we discussed them with the usual channels.

Jonathan Edwards: Looking at the proposed timetable, I note that parts 4 and 5 alone include 14 new clauses as well as Government and Opposition amendments, and there is no way in which considered debate can be held on all of them. As someone putting forward his own new clause, which is of huge importance to Wales, I am disappointed that insufficient time has been allocated on Report, and I call for extra time to ensure a considered debate about those vital issues.
	Question put and agreed to.

Localism Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.
	[ Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum?, HC 517; Written evidence submitted to the Communities and Local Government Committee on the General Power of Competence, HC 931; The Third Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the Localism Bill, HC 799. ]

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Limits on power under section 5(1)

‘(1) The Secretary of State may not make provision under section 5(1) unless the Secretary of State considers that the conditions in subsection (2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to that provision.
	(2) Those conditions are that—
	(a) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision;
	(b) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
	(c) the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
	(d) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
	(e) the provision is not of constitutional significance.
	(3) An order under section 5(1) may not make provision for the delegation or transfer of any function of legislating.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a “function of legislating” is a function of legislating by order, rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument.
	(5) An order under section 5(1) may not make provision to abolish or vary any tax.’.—(Andrew Stunell.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 8—Sunday trading hours  -  power to amend or repeal —
	‘Notwithstanding any existing statutory provisions, a local authority may, for its area, impose its own regulations on Sunday opening hours for retail outlets that currently have a restriction in place to either—
	(a) reduce the existing hours, or
	(b) extend the existing hours.’.
	New clause 10—Recall elections —
	‘(1) If 25% or more of the registered voters in the constituency of an elected local government member sign a relevant recall petition then a recall election must be held on the same date as the next election (whether or not a local election) to be held in the constituency of the elected government member, provided that that election is not less than 12 weeks after the threshold has been reached.
	(2) In order for a recall petition to be relevant the appropriate returning officer must be satisfied that—
	(a) the petition has been submitted in accordance with the rules provided for in subsection (3) and;
	(b) there is evidence contained in the petition that the elected local government member has—
	(i) acted in a way which is financially dishonest or disreputable,
	(ii) intentionally misled the body to which he or she was elected,
	(iii) broken any promises made by him or her in an election address,
	(iv) behaved in a way that is likely to bring his or her office into disrepute, or
	(v) lost the confidence of his or her electorate.
	(3) The Secretary of State must lay regulations before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act setting out—
	(a) how notice of intent to petition for recall is to be given,
	(b) how “registered voters” are to be defined for different types of constituency,
	(c) the definition of “appropriate returning officer”,
	(d) the ways in which registered voters can sign a recall petition,
	(e) the ways in which signatures to such petitions will be verified,
	(f) entitlement to vote in, and the conduct of, the recall election,
	(g) rules on any other related matters as considered necessary by the Secretary of State, and
	(h) consequential, saving, transitory or transitional provision (including amendments to existing statutory provision, whenever passed or made).
	(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to returning officers on how to make assessments under subsection (2)(b) within six months of the passing of this Act.
	(5) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers in a recall election is “Should [name of elected local government member] be recalled from [name of body or office]?”.
	(6) If at a recall election more votes are cast in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, then—
	(a) if the elected representative has been elected under a first past the post or alternative vote electoral system, he or she is recalled and a by-election must be held within three months in which the recalled candidate may stand, or
	(b) if the elected representative has been elected under a system of proportional representation, the next candidate on the relevant party list shall take the seat.
	(7) In this section “elected local government member” means any person elected to the Greater London Authority, a county council in England, district council, or London borough council, including an elected mayor of the council; and the Mayor of London.
	(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(9) Subsections (1) and (2) come into force six months after the day on which the regulations under subsection (3) are made.’.
	New clause 27—Low pay policy statements —
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument require relevant authorities to prepare a pay policy statement for lower paid staff within six months of this Act coming into force.
	(2) In this section “lower paid staff” means—
	(a) the lowest paid member of staff, and
	(b) any member of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff.’.
	New clause 28—Local authority contractor pay policy statements —
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument require relevant authorities to prepare a pay policy statement for the highest paid staff and the lower paid staff of local authority contractors within six months of this Act coming into force.
	(2) In this section—
	(a) “local authority contractors” means a company or organisation (a “contractor”) that supplies services or executes works for the relevant authorities to the value of more than £250,000 in any financial year;
	(b) “lower paid staff” means—
	(i) the lowest paid member of staff, and
	(ii) any member of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff,
	(c) “highest paid staff” means the highest paid member of staff by remuneration, which shall include payments made by the contractor to the member of staff in connection with that staff’s employment, any relevant bonuses and benefits in kind.’.
	Amendment 37,page4,line22, clause 5, at end insert—
	‘(6A) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may not be exercised to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply—
	(a) this Part of this Act,
	(b) Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 section 7 or section 13,
	(c) Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 section 23,
	(d) Children Act 1989 Part 3 and Schedule 2,
	(e) Childcare Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2,
	(f) Child Poverty Act 2010 Part 2,
	(g) Equality Act 2010, section 88,
	(h) Equality Act 2010, section 149,
	(i) Care Standards Act 2000,
	(j) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 section 21,
	(k) Transport Act 2000 section 145A,
	(l) Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,
	(m) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007,
	(n) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007,
	(o) Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000,
	(p) Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995,
	(q) Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
	(r) Mental Health Act 1983 Part 8,
	(s) Community Care, Services for Carers and Children Services (Direct Payments) England Regulations 2009,
	(t) Public Health Act 1875,
	(u) Public Health Act 1936,
	(v) Commons Act 2006,
	(w) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
	(x) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40,
	(y) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 25 or section 28E,
	(z) Environment Act 1995 Part 4,
	(z1) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
	(z2) Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949,
	(z3) Hedgerow Regulations 1997,
	(z4) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 66 or section 72,
	(z5) Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 sections 12 and 13,
	(z6) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
	(z7) Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 30,
	(z8) Zoo Licensing Act 1981,
	(z9) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Part 6,
	(z10) Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3,
	(z11) Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 28,
	(z12) Education Act 1996 section 15ZA,
	(z13) Food Safety Act 1990 Parts 1, 2 and 3,
	(z14) Freedom of Information Act 2000,
	(z15) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 section 1,
	(z16) Housing Act 1996 Part 7,
	(z17) Homelessness Act 2002,
	(z18) Housing Act 2004 Part 2,
	(z19) Local Government Act 1972 Part VA, section 99 or section 148,
	(z20) Local Government Act 2000 Part 3 section 21 or section 37,
	(z21) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 Part 1, or
	(z22) Adoption and Children Act 2002.’.
	Government amendments 44 to 50.
	Amendment 36,page5,line32, clause 7, at end insert—
	‘subject to the exceptions specified in section 5 (6A)’.
	Government amendments 51 to 98.
	Amendment 42,page193,line27, schedule 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 on page 195.
	Amendment 43,page198, leave out lines 4 to 25.
	Amendment 2,page199, leave out lines 30 to 43 and insert—
	‘The elected mayor is to be returned under the simple majority system.’.
	Amendment 3,page200,line6, leave out from ‘one’ to second ‘vote’ in line 7.
	Amendment 38,page205, leave out lines 29 to 31.
	Amendment 1,page208,line48, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘2.5’.
	Amendment 39,page209, leave out lines 3 to 25.
	Amendment 40,page209, leave out lines 26 to 47.
	Amendment 41,page211,line18, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 213.
	Amendment 15,page213,line40, at end insert—
	‘9OZA Elected Mayors and Reduction of Councillors
	(1) Where a local authority has an elected mayor, that local authority must reduce within four years of the election of the Mayor the number of local councillors to one-third of pre-mayoral levels.
	(2) These provisions will apply retrospectively to local authorities which already have an elected mayor and the reduction in councillors must take place within four years of this legislation taking effect.’.
	Amendment 4,page215, leave out line 17.
	Amendment 5,page215, leave out lines 34 and 35.
	Government amendments 99 to 129.
	Amendment 365,page15,line44, clause 16, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
	Amendment 366,page16,line4, leave out paragraph (c).
	Government amendments 130 and 131.
	Amendment 367,page16,line31, clause 17, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
	Amendment 302,page18,line28, clause 21, leave out ‘senior’.
	Amendment 303,page18,line30, leave out ‘A senior’ and insert ‘Subject to subsection (2)(b), a,’.
	Amendment 304,page18,line31, leave out ‘its chief officers’ and insert—
	‘(a) its chief officers and its lower paid staff; and
	(b) the chief officers and the lower paid staff for each employer of indirectly employed staff, subject to paragraph (c);
	(c) nothing in this Chapter shall be taken as requiring the publication of a pay policy statement where:
	(i) it relates to indirectly employed staff; and
	(ii) the aggregate value of all funding received by the indirect employer of the staff from a relevant authority does not exceed £250,00 in any financial year.’.
	Amendment 305,page18,line41, at end insert
	‘and the lower paid staff
	(h) the total level of remuneration of the highest paid chief officer (A);
	(i) the total level of remuneration of the lowest paid member of staff (B);
	(j) the total number of staff being paid the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
	(k) the number of staff paid less than 10 per cent. above the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
	(l) the number of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
	(m) the highest paid chief officer’s remuneration as a multiple of the lowest paid member of staff’s remuneration using the formulation A/B;
	(n) the pay multiple to be maintained as set out in paragraph (3)(m).’.
	Amendment 306,page19,line1, leave out ‘senior’.
	Amendment 307,page19,line3, at end insert ‘and lower paid staff’.
	Amendment 308,page19,line5, leave out ‘senior’.
	Amendment 309,page19,line11, leave out ‘senior’.
	Amendment 310,page19,line13, leave out ‘senior’.
	Amendment 311,page19,line16, at end insert—
	‘(6) Where any of the posts to be included in the pay policy statement are not full-time, the information given in the pay policy statement must be expressed as a full-time equivalent.’.
	Amendment 312,page19,line29, clause 24, at end insert—
	‘or its lower paid staff.’.
	Amendment 313,page19,line30, leave out ‘senior’.
	Amendment 373,page19,line39, leave out ‘senior’.
	Amendment 314,page20,line35, clause 26, at end insert—
	‘(g) any employee of the relevant authority whose remuneration exceeds that of any chief officer as defined in this section.’.
	Amendment 315,page20,line35, at end insert—
	‘(2A) In this Chapter “lower paid staff’, means each of the following—
	(a) the lowest paid member of staff,
	(b) staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff.
	(2B) In this Chapter “staff” means any staff whether directly or indirectly employed by a relevant authority and who are not chief officers.
	(2C) In this Chapter “indirectly employed” means staff employed other than by a relevant authority to undertake work for a relevant authority and which is funded by that authority. Any reference to indirect employment, indirect employer or indirectly employed staff, shall be construed accordingly.
	(2D) In this Chapter the provisions of section 231 (associated employers) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 shall apply to indirect employment arrangements.’.
	Amendment 316,page20,line36, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘, or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 317,page20,line38, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
	‘, or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
	Amendment 318,page20,line40, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘, or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 319,page20,line41, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 320,page20,line43, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 283,page20,line44, leave out ‘is’ and insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff is’.
	Amendment 284,page20,line45, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
	Amendment 285,page21,line1, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
	Amendment 286,page21,line4, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 287,page21,line5, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 288,page21,line7, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 289,page21,line8, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 290,page21,line11, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 291,page21,line13, after ‘officer’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
	Amendment 292,page21,line15, after ‘officers’, insert—
	‘or lowest paid members of staff’.
	Government new clause 13—Further warning notices. 
	Government new clause 14—Further EU financial sanction notices.
	Amendment 353,page22,line1, leave out clause 30.
	Government amendments 132 and 133.
	Amendment 354,page22,line28, leave out clause 31.
	Government amendments 134 and 135.
	Amendment 355,page23,line41, leave out clause 32.
	Government amendments 136 to 138.
	Amendment 356,page24,line23, leave out clause 33.
	Government amendments 139 and 140.
	Amendment 357,page24,line38, leave out clause 34.
	Government amendments 141 to 143, 183, 211, 216 and 217.
	Government new clause 22—Pre-commencement consultation.
	Government amendment 266.

Andrew Stunell: New clause 12 refines one of the central elements of the Bill—the general power of competence. I shall say more about that shortly and also address the other new clauses and amendments in this excessively long group.
	The Government are committed to the radical decentralisation of power and control from Whitehall and Westminster to local government, local communities and individuals. We are pushing power back down to the lowest possible level, and this Bill is about shaking up the balance of power and revitalising democracy. It will give power to councils, communities, voluntary groups and the people, giving local authorities the power to take decisions that are right for their areas, and giving to local people the power to influence those decisions.
	This Government trust local authorities to know what is best for their areas, we trust local councillors to know what they are doing and we are freeing up local government from the shackles of central Government. The Localism Bill does just what it says on the label.

Philip Davies: I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks and wonder whether he is, therefore, just about to get on to the fact that he supports my new clause 8, which would give local authorities the opportunity to vary Sunday trading laws. If what he says is true and he wants to pass all such decisions down to the lowest possible level, that is surely what he is about to announce.

Andrew Stunell: I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s case deployed in the debate.
	I am pleased to report that there is a very broad measure of agreement, both inside and outside the House, on the Bill’s principles and, indeed, on many of its specific provisions.
	Local authorities will need to ensure the delivery of more responsive services in a more transparent way, so that their citizens can see what is going on. To do so, local councils will need to innovate, to work across traditional boundaries and to ensure clear lines of accountability to their residents. That will be characterised, above all, by the way in which local democracy is renewed.
	Within this very large group of proposed changes, there are a number of new clauses and amendments that hon. Members from all parts of the House have tabled, including the one to which my hon. Friend just referred. We shall debate them, I will consider carefully the points that hon. Members raise and I hope to have the opportunity to respond to them before the close of this debate.
	We had a consensual time on the whole in Committee, and I hope that we can carry that forward in our discussion on this group of proposed changes.

Barbara Keeley: Not wanting to become non-consensual at this early stage, I note that the Minister talks about limits on power, and we are still concerned about the Bill’s 142 extra powers for the Secretary of State. I am puzzled why new clause 12 specifies only the powers in clause 5(1), because they are exactly the same as those in clause 5(2). If there is a concern about limiting the powers of the Secretary of State, it should apply to both subsections. I wonder whether the Minister might cover that point.

Andrew Stunell: I hope to have satisfied the hon. Lady by the time I have completed my remarks. If not, I am sure that she will let me know.
	All the Government amendments and new clauses, one way or another, are designed to improve the effectiveness of the Bill, given the range of issues that were raised in Committee, as the Minister of State said, and given outside events, including in particular the passage of the Welsh referendum, which means that some of the provisions that were in prospect earlier on can now be made a reality. To that extent, I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) that we are not inserting a whole lot of totally new provisions; we are simply making available to the Welsh Executive the same powers that are being made available in England. I hope he finds that somewhat reassuring.
	We have, where appropriate, taken into account feedback from the consultations that have been carried out on elements of the Bill and representations that we have received from a wide range of organisations that have been interested in—and, in some cases, very excited about—the prospect of the Bill coming into force.
	There was a broad consensus about the general power of competence, with the concerns that were expressed being about the scope of the powers and the role of the Secretary of State. New clause 12 and the related amendments address those points. Equally, there were debates and discussions about the position of fire and rescue authorities, because they will have similar powers. We have reflected on the concerns raised in Committee and the feedback that we received from industry partners, and we have tabled an amendment on that point. Several amendments make the fire and rescue authority powers applicable in Wales.
	There was much agreement in the Committee’s debate on the Standards Board for England, and we listened carefully and have tabled an amendment. On European Union fines, there was a lot of discussion about the practicalities, but we reached a position whereby people agreed that the intentions behind our proposals on EU infractions were broadly reasonable—I think those were the words of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford)—and the debate was more about how this would work in practice.

Barbara Keeley: This is the point where we have to become non-consensual, because Labour Members are still totally opposed to EU fines, and amendments have been tabled on that.

Andrew Stunell: I take note of that, and I will return to it in two or three minutes’ time, if I may.
	The hon. Lady is of course right that there was not agreement on everything. I recognise, in particular, that there were different views on mayors, not only between Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams but among some of my hon. Friends. I will listen carefully to the points made today on the mayoral proposals in the Bill, particularly on such issues as shadow mayors and mayoral management arrangements. Overall, however, I was struck by how much we had in common and how much consensus there is about the need to change the power balance in this country in line with the direction that the Bill takes. I hope that the House will recognise that, through the range of new clauses and amendments that we have tabled, we have tried genuinely and thoroughly to address the points that have been raised.
	Let me turn in more detail to new clause 12 and some of the other Government amendments. I appreciate that I have to strike a difficult balance between using up the available time for debate and giving the House a reasonable explanation of the measures before it. I will steer as good a course as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you will let me know if I go astray. New clause 12 and its related amendments impose conditions on the use of the delegated powers in clause 5(1) in relation to the general power of competence. Clause 5(1) sets out a power for the Secretary of State to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power of competence. We have termed this the barrier-buster power.
	Amendment 64 is the equivalent provision for the general power of competence for fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales. The amendment imposes conditions on the use of the delegated powers in new section 5C(1) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which is inserted by clause 8. New section 5C(1) sets out a power for the appropriate national authority—Welsh Ministers for the devolved matters relating to Wales, but otherwise the Secretary of State—to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power for fire and rescue authorities.
	Concerns were expressed about the scope of the delegated power at clause 5(1)—the barrier buster—and the equivalent powers in relation to fire and rescue authorities. The Government reflected on those concerns and decided to introduce specific preconditions as to the use of the barrier-buster power and the limitations on its scope. These include a proportionality test and a requirement to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by an order. In addition to the current requirements that the Secretary of State has to satisfy—in particular, that he must think that a provision prevents or restricts the use of the general power and must consult on his proposals—subsection (1) now provides that he must also consider the conditions set out in subsection (2), in relation to the general power, and in section 5C(1) in relation to the fire provision to have been satisfied in relation to the proposals.
	The new conditions that the clause introduces ensure that the use of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended, that there is a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected, that there is no removal of any necessary protection, that no person will be prevented
	from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that they might reasonably expect to exercise, and that any provision is not of constitutional significance. In the light of Opposition amendments 36 and 37, it is perhaps worth explaining the effect of these conditions in a little more detail. The first condition is that the effect of the provision made by the order is proportionate to its policy objective. It might be possible to achieve a policy objective in several different ways, some of which might be more onerous than others and could represent a disproportionate means of securing the desired outcome, so the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that that is not the case and that there is an appropriate relationship between the policy aim and the means chosen to deliver it.
	The second condition is that the provision made by the order, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest, on the one hand, and the interests of the person adversely affected by the order, on the other. While it may be possible to make an order that will have an adverse effect on the interests of one or more persons, the Secretary of State must first be satisfied that this is outweighed by beneficial effects in the public interest. The third condition is that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection. The notion of necessary protection can extend to economic protection, to health and safety protection, and to the protection of civil liberties, the environment and national heritage.
	The fourth condition is that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. To take a leading example, any right conferred or protected by the European convention on human rights is a right that a person might reasonably expect to keep. The fifth and final condition is that the provision made by the order is not constitutionally significant. That condition will allow orders to amend enactments that are themselves constitutionally significant, but only if the amendments are not constitutionally significant. The condition puts it beyond doubt that repeal of legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Communities Act 1972 is outside this power.
	In addition to these preconditions, we are seeking to amend the Bill so that an order under clause 5(1) or section 5C(1) of the 2004 Act may not make provision in relation to certain specified limitation. Subsection (3) prevents orders from being used to delegate or transfer a function of legislating, ensuring that a power to make legislation given by Parliament to the Secretary of State or to another body cannot be transferred to a local authority in the interests of barrier busting. It is right that those decisions should remain with Parliament. Subsection (4) gives a definition of the function of legislating—that is, legislating by order, by rules, by regulation or by subordinate instruments. Subsection (5) prohibits an order from abolishing or varying any tax. It could be argued that removing a tax payable by a local authority would be the removal of a barrier, but it is not our intention that clause 5(1) should be used in that way, so the new clause will prevent an order to vary tax from being made.
	Taken as a whole, the Government’s proposals will provide the protections that the Opposition seek in amendments 36 and 37, but without the inflexible and heavy-handed mechanism that they propose.
	Amendment 36 would amend the definition of a statutory provision by excluding from that definition a long list of statutes, which is set out in amendment 37. That appears to have been prompted by various strands of work that are being undertaken to gather information about local authority duties. This appears to be an attempt to make a point about front-line duties and the desirability of many things that local authorities have to do. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) set out on her website as being her intention. She has fairly given me notice that she
	“will be pressing ministers in the Commons debate…to be clear about which other vital council services can be protected.”
	I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the general power is not designed as a means to do away with duties that Parliament has imposed on local authorities. The general power does not oblige local authorities to act in a particular way; it is not the same thing as a duty imposed by legislation. It will give local authorities real freedom to innovate and act in the interests of their communities. The Opposition seem to have developed a misunderstanding about the scope of clause 5(1). It provides the Secretary of State with powers to remove or change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power. That restriction or limitation is one that bites on the general power by virtue of clause 2. The provision is about removing barriers to the legal capacity of authorities to act innovatively and in the best interests of their communities. It is not aimed at removing duties, nor is it, nor could it be, a general-purpose tool to remove any legislation that places a burden on local authorities.
	New clause 12 and the connected Government amendments will increase the safeguards on the use of the power in clause 5(1). In addition, the Secretary of State must consult before exercising the power and the appropriate parliamentary procedure for scrutinising any proposed order will be determined by Parliament.

Heidi Alexander: Does the Minister accept that clause 5, when taken in conjunction with the review that his Department is carrying out into burdensome regulations, might lead to the fear, which many of my constituents have expressed to me, that important protections and duties that exist within local authorities might disappear?

Andrew Stunell: The review of statutory duties is a separate exercise. We have made it clear several times that the review of statutory duties will not remove duties to provide vital services, and that any changes to statutory duties that come about as a result of that review will subsequently be properly considered and consulted on. There is no connection between the two processes.
	I urge the House, when the time comes, to support new clause 12 and to reject amendments 36 and 37.
	I will turn to the other proposals in this group, on which I hope I can be helpful. When the Committee discussed the standards of behaviour required of councillors, we discussed whether a local authority should have to publicise that it has a code of conduct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) made a powerful speech on the difference between may and must. I think that was one of the Committee’s high spots. Although we consider it right that a local authority
	can choose whether to adopt a code of conduct for its members, it must be under a duty to disclose whether it has done so and whether it has revised or abolished its code. That duty will ensure that local people are made aware when their local authority adopts, changes or withdraws its code, while leaving it for authorities to decide how best to publicise and deal with these matters.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister is putting the completely absurd proposition to the House that the local authority will be under a duty to publicise a code of conduct that it may decide not to have. Will he please recognise that that is nonsense? Abolishing the requirement for a code of conduct in every local authority in the country is a serious, retrograde step, of which the Government should be profoundly ashamed.

Andrew Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and the answer is no, I do not accept that at all. When we exchanged words in Committee, I thought that this was an outrage, so I am glad that it has been downgraded a little. The important point is that the decision a local authority takes should be transparent, so that the local electorate are aware of it and the local authority are accountable to them. We have accepted the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East put to the Committee, and Government amendments 130 and 131 deal with that.

Oliver Heald: Does the Minister expect to give any guidance under the powers in the Bill on what a code of conduct might contain, or will it simply be left to the local authority to do its best?

Andrew Stunell: The Local Government Association has given notice that it sees itself as—I do not want to put words into its mouth and say the custodian—the focal point for ensuring that a standard code of practice is available. I would have thought that the huge majority of local authorities will continue to have a published and open code of conduct. Indeed, I should have thought that it would reflect adversely on the reputation of a local authority if it chose not to do so. However, the right place for that decision to be taken is in that local authority in the light of the views of its electorate; it is not something that should be imposed from above.

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland, we have a stringent code of conduct for local authorities. Has the Minister had any discussions with local authorities in Northern Ireland on using that blueprint for a code of conduct under these proposals?

Andrew Stunell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill is not applicable in Northern Ireland. Currently, every local authority in England has to have a statutory code of conduct, so we are not for want of an example. We are saying that there should be flexibility about the shape and nature of the code, and that that flexibility should be exercised by the local authority.
	On EU fines and infractions, I assure the House and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South that we will ensure that any process to pass on an EU fine is fair, reasonable and proportionate, and we will consult on that. We will pass on a fine only if an authority has clearly caused or contributed to causing it, and has the power to remedy the situation and can afford to pay. That is set out in new clauses 13 and 14 and in Government amendments 132 to 143. The measure is not about Ministers reclaiming every penny; it is about giving a strong encouragement not to incur fines in the first place. Local authorities must not be able to assume that if they make a mistake and are in the wrong, the UK taxpayer will pay their bill for them.
	It is perhaps worth rehearsing what the process is. EU grants are given with conditions attached. At present, the monitoring, and therefore the risk, falls to central Government and their agencies. In the new, devolved world, that will not always be the case, and with the transfer of control has to come a transfer of risk. The Government do not seek to offload risks that are beyond a local authority’s control—mention has been made of air pollution targets and so on.
	That will all be set out in a policy statement, and I can say today that we are making good progress on that. I am placing in the Library a paper from the Greater London authority that has emerged from some of our earlier discussions, and I would very much welcome comments on it. We do not necessarily agree with every single part of it, but it will provide a strong basis for discussion over the next few weeks and we are committed to taking that discussion forward. We have also engaged with the Local Government Association and will continue to do so.
	We debated fire and rescue authorities in Committee, and our amendments 92 and 93 are a response to the concerns that the Opposition raised and feedback that we have received from industry partners. They relate to authorities’ powers to charge for attending persistently malfunctioning or wrongly installed automatic fire alarms. It is not in dispute that there should be such a provision for non-domestic premises, but the point was made that domestic premises would also be caught by that power, and probably wrongly so. The amendments simply remove that option from fire and rescue authorities.
	We also discussed pay accountability in Committee, and we undertook to return to the House on the matter of greater accountability on low pay in light of Will Hutton’s report on fair pay in the public sector. His report made some clear recommendations, particularly about the benefit of setting decisions on senior pay in the context of the pay of the rest of a body’s work force. Some of the Opposition’s amendments are in the same tone. We are sympathetic to that idea, particularly the potential for linking lower pay with senior pay, and we will consider the best way to take that forward. If necessary, we will return to it in the other place. As we do so, we will remain mindful of the level of burden placed on authorities and ensure that pay decisions remain ones for the appropriate local employer to take and are not dictated by us.
	On the other hand, we do not think it would be helpful to use the Bill to address the pay of contracting bodies. Councils, the voluntary sector and businesses, especially small firms, have called on the Government to remove unnecessary burdens and break down barriers
	in local authority contracting, not increase them. That does not prevent a local authority from developing a local policy to ensure that bodies with which it contracts are open about their rates of pay as a matter of contract. That should remain an issue for local decision making, not central determination.
	We have a very large group of amendments, and you no doubt have a large group of Members wishing to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House on the one hand for taking so long and on the other for dealing with some very important topics only in skeleton form. I am pleased to move new clause 12, and in due time I will wish to move the other Government new clauses and amendments in the group. I undertake to listen carefully to Members’ contributions as the debate proceeds.

Barbara Keeley: I am glad that Ministers are still so interested in my website—it makes it worth all the effort of keeping it up to date.
	I shall speak first to amendments 36 and 37, which are related to new clause 12. They are intended to protect a list of the most important duties of local councils from the powers that the Secretary of State wants to take in clause 5(1) and (2). I should remind the Minister that he did not answer my question about new clause 12 not applying to clause 5(2). I see that Ministers are looking at the Box and seeing if they can find some inspiration over there.
	As I said on Second Reading, the Secretary of State’s power under clause 5(1) and (2) is chilling, because it would allow him to
	“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”
	any statutory provision. The Government can keep calling that barrier-busting, but it will still end up being the same swingeing power. The difficulty for those who are opposed to it is that it would leave local councils and the people who use their services at the mercy of the ideology of the current Government and Secretary of State. I know from the debates that we had in Committee that some of the Ministers were opposed to giving Secretaries of State such a level of power in previous local government Bills, and spoke against it. Perhaps they would like to think about why they have had such a change of heart.
	Since our debates on the Bill started, the Department has launched its review of the statutory duties of local councils. That means that the nature of the power in question, and how it will be used to sweep away what councils are starting to see as burdens, is now much more under the spotlight. The Government’s focus on duties as “burdens” has caused alarm and great concern to people who rely on the services of their local council. Their concern about the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers to sweep away councils’ duties is greater because of the language that the Government are using to describe the vital duties on which people depend. In the review, councils and the public were asked to specify the bureaucratic burdens that they wished to throw away. In fact, Ministers have allowed all the duties of councils to be listed, and voted on, as “burdens”, “red tape” or “bureaucratic barriers”. In using that language, they do not appear to have considered the importance of many of the statutory duties of local councils.
	Strangely, we now find ourselves bartering to try to find out which particular duties might be safe and protected from the Secretary of State. The Department’s website states that the only duties that might be protected are those on libraries and child protection, but the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), ventured in a recent letter to The Guardian that allotments were also safe. It is not reasonable to have only vague reassurances on three out of all the duties of local councils. We have therefore tabled amendments 36 and 37, and I say to Ministers that they must be clearer about protecting the vital duties of local councils—duties that legislation has created, which provide important protections and services on which people rely—from the power that the Secretary of State wants to
	“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”
	any statutory provision.
	Members should make no mistake about it: there are real concerns about that power. Professor Luke Clements is a leading expert on community care law, and in an article about the statutory provisions that could be swept away by the new power, he stated:
	“The list includes large swathes of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Children Act 1989 as well as virtually every community care and carers statute. The suggestion that protecting children or frail elderly people from abuse could be…‘burdensome’ is further evidence of the coalition government’s disdain for the very notion of a welfare state.”
	He said of the Government’s approach:
	“It is a contempt that has already created a largely lawless regime where fundamental rights, such as the right to a face-to-face assessment”
	and
	“the right to have assessed needs met regardless of resources…are openly flouted. It is a regime that fuels the daily news stories of disabled, elderly and ill people being failed by public bodies, and experiencing neglect and extreme indignity. In the face of this, the response of the coalition government is not to strengthen the law, but to suggest that it be trashed.”

Andrew Stunell: I have really been disappointed by the hon. Lady’s remarks, which are a travesty of what is in prospect. I spent perhaps a little too long in my speech explaining precisely what new clause 12 will do and making it absolutely clear what it will not do. I am sorry to say that she is making it up, which is not good.
	Incidentally, I can answer the hon. Lady’s question about clause 5(2)—as she suggested, inspiration has arrived. It relates only to overlapping powers, so by definition it will not change local authority powers or duties because it will take away only one of the overlapping powers.

Barbara Keeley: I am afraid that I am not convinced by that, and I am not making this up. I know Professor Clements, because he helped to draft much of the carers legislation that went through the House as private Members’ Bills. He, among others, is very concerned.
	To respond to the Minister’s point, part of the difficulty is that the conditions set out in Government new clause 12(2) are subjective. It is another lawyers’ charter, because they will have to settle the question of whether or not legislation fits those conditions. The key point is that all the decisions lie completely within the judgment of the Secretary of State. That is what is making people
	uncomfortable. There is great concern about sweeping away the laws, rights and protections for those who need care. Yesterday in the Palace, I attended a gathering of five all-party groups on disability—I attended as the chair of the all-party group on social care. Two questions were asked of the Bill and the review, and there was a chorus of concern in the room. Ministers can attack me if they want to, but I am representing concern from outside the House.
	Citizens Advice has told MPs that it is worried about the broad-ranging powers that clause 5 confers on the Secretary of State. It is worried that the power will be used to revoke or repeal a number of statutory provisions, such as the public sector equalities duty.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Prime Minister says that he wants power to be given back to local people. Does my hon. Friend agree that giving the Secretary of State 126 new powers contradicts that?

Barbara Keeley: That is a contradiction. In fact, the 126 or 142 new powers—we can count them in different ways—are of great concern.
	The list of legislation that we propose in amendment 37 for protection from those new powers may not be perfect—I am sure people can find fault with it—but it is vital to get a clear steer from Ministers that they do not intend to continue to see important council duties as burdens. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Homelessness Act 2002, which is on our proposed list, creates a vital duty for councils to have a strategy for tackling homelessness, or does he agree with Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has asked for that duty to be scrapped? Hammersmith and Fulham also wants to scrap the rough sleeper strategy, and wants not to assess the sufficiency of locally available child care. It wants no requirements on its youth service. Do Ministers believe that Hammersmith and Fulham should be able to shed those duties? That is the key question.
	Councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham want to shake off what they view as burdensome duties, but the Opposition’s view is that those council services are vital and should be protected. A list of what is vital and to be protected is the key to that. In Committee, the Minister said:
	“Every local authority will retain duties enshrined in other legislation to provide services and not to charge for them, if charging is not allowed at present.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2011; c. 184.]
	However, Hammersmith and Fulham wants not to have plans for homeless people, and Wandsworth council plans to charge children £2.50 to use a playground. That is where we are. It is time for Ministers to end the uncertainty that they have generated with their sloppy plans for revising legislation on council duties. It is time for them to reintroduce certainty, so that people know that councils must provide land for allotments and an efficient library service, assess carers’ needs, and have plans for tackling homelessness.
	I welcome the Minister’s partial sympathy on proposed new clauses 27 and 28 and the proposed amendments on pay transparency and very much look forward to developments. Much has been said in recent months on top pay in local government. I am sure that Ministers
	would agree that a great deal of that talk has been stoked by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. However, he has tended not to show the same concern for the lowest paid staff, or for levels of pay among consultants and contractors, who provide £38 billion-worth of goods and services to local government, which is paid for out of the public purse.
	Our proposals aim to introduce pay transparency much more fully than the Government plan. We want to shine a light on top pay and low pay, and I welcome the Minister’s sympathy for that. However, the Opposition also want to develop the recommendations in the Hutton review on pay. Ministers said that they would reflect on that review, and I hope they take that seriously. All hon. Members agree that there has been some excessive growth in senior roles in the public sector, but there are also myths about public sector pay. The Local Government Association estimates that of 1.7 million employees in mainstream local government jobs, 60% earn less than £18,000 a year. According to the LGA, more than 400,000 council workers earn less than the living wage, including more than 250,000 who earn less than £6.50 an hour.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. As a former Unison trade union officer, I know that a high proportion of those low-paid workers—a big majority—are women.

Barbara Keeley: Indeed, a quarter of those who experience in-work poverty are employed by the public sector. In addition, the average public sector pension, at £4,200, is very far from the gold-plated pension that people talk about. Our proposals would introduce greater transparency and help the objective of curbing excessive pay at the top of the scale, because it will be harder for a highly paid council chief executive to defend his or her pay if the public can see what that council pays its lowest-paid members of staff.
	The Opposition believe that as well as an approach on top and low pay, we need a fair and consistent approach to transparency in local authority pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said in Committee, Will Hutton’s report puts paid to the myths. Public sector employees earn only £1 of every £100 earned by the top 1%, or to put it another way, out of every £100 that is earned by the top 1%, only £1 is earned in the public sector. Therefore, the perception that the public sector is awash with fat cats is a myth, and it does not help when DCLG Ministers spend their time building that myth as a way of dealing with top pay.
	The Hutton report confirms that increases in executive pay have been a private sector phenomenon. That is why tackling excess pay should happen not just in the public sector. We should also focus on pay in the private sector when money is paid from the public purse—that is the test. Staff on outsourced local government contracts tend to be concentrated in low-wage sectors such as cleaning, catering, low-skilled manual work and care work. One key question for hon. Members is this: do we want cleaners, care workers and teaching assistants to earn a living wage? The Opposition believe that they should earn such a wage. We therefore hope that Ministers and Government Members agree that the implementation of a senior pay policy in local government would be a double standard if the same logic is not applied to contractors, not least because the local government procurement market is valued at £38 billion.
	Will Hutton said in his report that
	“it is important that the Fair Pay Code and as far as possible the other recommendations of this Review are extended into the public services industry.”
	I hope that Ministers—I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber—support Hutton’s proposals to extend pay transparency to those private sector contractors who are paid out of the public purse. Implementation of our proposals would help to ensure that executive pay does not spiral up, that low pay is challenged, and that people can be confident that their local council is spending their money fairly and wisely.
	Finally, I support amendments 39 to 41, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Birmingham, Erdington. The proposals would remove the power of the Secretary of State, who has just joined us in the Chamber, to direct or order the imposition of shadow mayors. That is one of the most controversial measures in the Bill, and it represents the Government at their most centralising. The Government want to order a local authority to cease its existing form of governance and begin to operate a mayor and cabinet executive. Ministers spent months denying that they intended to try to impose shadow mayors.
	I remind the Secretary of State that he gave the following answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 21 October 2010:
	“She seems to be suggesting that we would somehow impose mayors on those 12 cities, but of course we will not-that is completely out of the question. The proposals will be subject to referendums. Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1117.]
	[Interruption.] I am getting some confusing signals from Government Members. On the same day, to be clear about the Secretary of State’s intentions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asked him again whether it was his intention to turn council leaders into mayors before holding a referendum. He stood at the Dispatch Box and referred my hon. Friend back to the earlier question:
	“I ruled out the possibility that we would be imposing mayors. This will be subject to a referendum.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1125.]
	He was absolutely clear. However, the proposal in the Bill directly contradicts what the Secretary of State said on that occasion and on other occasions. It is further proof of a Government who say one thing and do another, and it raises further questions about whether what they say can be trusted at all.
	Since the debate began on the proposal to impose mayors on 12 of our largest cities, opposition has bubbled up and developed all over the place. Indeed, the day after the Localism Bill was announced, the leader of Bradford council, Councillor Ian Greenwood, told the Bradford Telegraph and Argus newspaper that he was uncomfortable with being given an office to which he had not been elected. In that article, he said:
	“My view is this is not the right thing for Bradford… I am uncomfortable about being given an office I wasn’t elected to. I don’t feel it’s the right thing to do. Leadership is not about dictating, it’s about taking people with you”.

Stephen McCabe: Does my hon. Friend accept that we need a clear line on this? The Secretary of State’s apparent proposal for Birmingham
	would mean that the person who lost the election this May and will lose it again next May will be imposed on the people of Birmingham, irrespective of how they vote. Surely there is nothing democratic about that.

Barbara Keeley: No, there is absolutely not. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
	Hon. Members will be interested to know the extent to which there is all-party opposition to these proposals in Bradford. The Conservative group leader on Bradford council also argued against the imposition of a shadow mayor in that city. In the same article, Councillor Anne Hawkesworth said:
	“My colleagues and I are not supportive of elected mayors… We do not think that the proposals are suited to the needs of…Bradford.”
	Last week, the same issue was reported on again, when the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said:
	“My view is that it should be for the councils to decide if they want to go down the referendum route. The referendum shouldn’t be imposed.”
	The Opposition agree. Shadow mayors and referendums on having a mayor should not be imposed. In Bradford at least, it seems, there is Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Government’s proposals. However, there has also been opposition in other councils, including Leeds city council.

Clive Betts: While my hon. Friend is running through a list of authorities, will she also refer to Sheffield—now a Labour-controlled authority, of course? There has been cross-party agreement between Labour and Liberal Democrats, and all are opposed to any mayoral system at all, and certainly opposed to shadow mayors. I am sure that were there any Conservative councillors in Sheffield—which there are not—they would be joining in the opposition as well. Is it not a strange system in which a mayor’s legitimacy comes from being elected by the public, but a shadow mayor’s legitimacy comes from being the representative of most councillors on a council? In Sheffield, that majority of councillors are opposed to the proposals.

Barbara Keeley: Absolutely. I was not going to go through a complete list, but I welcome hearing about what has happened in Sheffield.
	It seems that Yorkshire is turning against these proposals en masse, and there has been opposition in other councils—for example, in Leeds city council. The Yorkshire Post quoted its leader, Councillor Keith Wakefield, as saying that these proposals are
	“not acceptable in today’s democracy… If people decide they want an elected mayor that’s what they should have, but do it following a vote… I think the idea of a referendum is OK where people have an opportunity to say yea or nay. What’s not right is putting you in a position where there’s been no vote.”
	I understand that he would turn down the position whatever happens.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford East and his colleagues will support our amendment 41, and vote against the imposition of shadow mayors and referendums on their local councils.

Gavin Barwell: rose—

Barbara Keeley: I am about to conclude, so as to leave time for other Members to speak.
	I regret that a new group of amendments on scrutiny was not selected for debate tonight. It was debated in Committee, and I hope that it can be taken forward to the other place. I would like to underline again and again that we are still opposed to EU fines.

John Stevenson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Report on this important Bill. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments, however, and that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will be as succinct as possible. I would like to refer to amendments 2 and 3. They are small but significant amendments that deal with the election of elected mayors. Because of their significance, I hope to press them to a vote tonight, unless Ministers see their merits.
	I fully subscribe to the localism agenda. I believe that we have become an over-centralised state, with too much power at the centre, whether with Ministers or civil servants. The Bill will start to turn the tanker around. I accept that progress will be slow, but it will take the agenda in the right direction. On Second Reading, I said that a cultural change was required first in Whitehall, with less interference and prescription from the centre, and, secondly, in the town hall, with people there taking more responsibility. However, localism has three strands: the division of power; tax-raising powers; and governance. I would like to concentrate on governance, particularly elected mayors.
	I am a strong supporter of the concept of elected mayors. That is the direction in which we should be going. They are open, transparent and accountable, and I also believe that they will help to revive local government. I thought that there was broad cross-party support for them, because they were introduced by a Labour Government in 2000, and because, obviously, the coalition Government are retaining the concept and looking to introduce 11 new mayors in due course.

Kelvin Hopkins: I accept that elected mayors were a Labour concept, although I was not in favour of them. It is noticeable that across the country many local authorities have rejected the idea, and that many of those who voted for them now regret doing so.

John Stevenson: I accept that they are not universally supported by all parties, but I believe that there is broad support. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point, though, because there are several reasons why elected mayors have not caught on. However, I want to concentrate on my amendment 2 about their actual election.
	At present, mayors are elected under the supplementary vote system, which is retained in the Bill. Effectively it is a form of the alternative vote. My amendment 2 would change that so that future elections are done under first past the post. That would provide a consistent approach to elections. Varying the voting system creates confusion and a lack of certainty for the average voter. Two weeks ago, this country went to the polling booth for a referendum on whether we wanted AV or first past the post. Had the voters supported AV, I would have withdrawn this amendment. I would have accepted the will of the people. In fact, there was an overwhelming and emphatic vote for first past the post. As one hon. Member said to
	me, “The people of this country did not say no; they said never.” I accept that judgment, but I believe there has to be consistency. I support the amendment on the basis that we should have a consistent approach to our elections and that elected mayors should therefore be elected under first past the post. I genuinely hope that the House will agree with what the people said two weeks ago and support the amendment.

Graham Jones: I want to address new clauses 13 and 14 on EU fines. I believe that ministerial advice stated that individual fines to local authorities would be appropriate where there was a direct causal link, and where councils were guilty of action or inaction. One example is waste, on which I would like to address two key issues: EU directives on recycling and landfill taxes.
	The Local Government Association briefing is dismissive of the Government’s proposals. It states:
	“Moves to allow Ministers to force English councils to pay parts of fines imposed on the UK government by the EU are unfair, unworkable, dangerous and unconstitutional. This is an unprecedented power for Ministers to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny and will inevitably lead to legal battles as Government tries to apportion “blame” for EU fines.”
	The LGA urges that the policy be scrapped, and continues:
	“In effect it means a Minister may simultaneously be prosecutor, judge, jury, and co-defendant, when Ministers themselves may actually be responsible for fines being levied. This is neither impartial nor localist.”
	There are reasons why the Government are responsible for such fines perhaps being levied, but I want to address the confusion that seems to exist in Government. The Minister for the natural environment—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—said in Committee in March that local authorities would not face what I describe as “bin taxes”, which are charges on local authorities and their residents for not reaching the EU’s 50% threshold. I asked him:
	“I want to press the Minister on EU fines for England and Wales on waste collection. Does he support the individual fining of authorities that do kerbside collection and that are struggling to reach 50%, as suggested by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government?”
	The Minister replied:
	“I can tell the Committee that local authorities will not be fined individually for not achieving 50%. I can give that assurance…If we are failing, it will be lamentable”.—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 March 2011; c. 9-10.]
	There seems to be a great deal of confusion between the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this issue. To be honest, I would like the proposal scrapped, but we at least need some clarity on how to reach 50% recycling rates and avoid EU fines.
	The Bill does nothing to protect my constituents, particularly given that councils in east Lancashire have been hit extremely hard by DCLG cuts. Residents in my local authority, which was Conservative until last Thursday night—thankfully we now have a Labour authority—had achieved a 40% recycling rate, or just under. In effect, we are talking about a bin tax by any other name, and it is unfair. The message to the Minister this evening is that it is not the fault of the residents of Lancashire. The county council’s waste private finance initiative schemes would have resulted in a 90% recycling rate, but they were scrapped a few months ago. Up until a few
	months ago we had a strategy that would have enabled us to avoid EU fines, and we are talking about some of the most deprived communities in this country.
	There are also issues around recycling centres. If the Government will not invest in recycling centres, or if the spread of recycling centres across the country is disproportionate, that is not fair either, but that is a Government policy. It is not an EU policy; it is a policy that the Government will be answerable for. The LGA is quite correct to say that the Government will be held to account; indeed, this issue could end up in the courts.
	However, there is a second, more important reason why the scheme is not fair—a reason that I put to the Under-Secretary—and it concerns the difference between kerbside and co-mingled collections. Kerbside collection rates are around 30% to 40%, whereas co-mingled collections through recycling centres are hitting 80%, 90% and beyond. Local authorities in areas with co-mingled recycling will have high collection rates, but they will also have problems with contamination, which I accept. The Government are trying to encourage people not to co-mingle, but to separate. However, collection rates in areas with kerbside collections are much lower, so EU fines are unfair.

Greg Clark: I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in his tracks, but I think that I can reassure him. He is operating on completely the wrong premise. There is no suggestion at all that a fine would be levied on an authority because of its performance on recycling rates. The only suggestion is that if the authority does not adopt a plan as required—that is, something specifically required of that authority—and if it has been warned that it needs to have one, that will be the occasion for a fine. That authority’s performance is completely irrelevant, whatever it might be. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and allow him to return to the issue at hand.

Graham Jones: I thank the Minister for that, because he is essentially saying that he has just ripped up his own new clause, which now has no teeth—he has just taken them all out. If local authorities are to come up with a plan, they will come up with one and carry on recycling at 30%. However, the Minister is not going to say to local authorities, “Well, actually, because you’ve got a plan, we’re going to do something about it.” Instead, he will be saying, “You’ve got a plan, so we’re going to do nothing about it.” He has taken all the teeth out of his own new clause, so why has he proposed it? Why has it taken him until today to say what he has said this evening, and why do ministerial statements say that the proposal involves waste? He is effectively telling people that—

Greg Clark: rose —

Graham Jones: I would like to finish speaking.

Greg Clark: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to give way. The hon. Gentleman has given way once, and if he wishes to do so again, I am sure that he will let the Minister know.

Graham Jones: I accept what the Minister has said on the record, which he made absolutely clear. The new clause has no value, but I would say—

Andrew Stunell: rose—

Graham Jones: No.
	The Minister of State had the opportunity before to say what he has said this evening, but there are real issues—[ Interruption. ] That is fine, but it is the Government who are putting forward their new clause, which now has no teeth.
	In conclusion—because I was wrapping up—the LGA says that the proposal will be problematic to enforce. What are the Government enforcing? How can local government increase recycling rates for residents? If action is to be taken, it will hit some of the poorest communities that have higher recycling rates, not some of the wealthiest ones, and the same goes for landfill taxes. I appreciate Ministers’ comments, but as far as I am concerned, I am delighted that all the teeth have been taken out of this proposal.

Philip Davies: I certainly hope that the Minister will give me as helpful a response as he gave the previous speaker when he considers my amendments.
	My new clause 8 would allow local authorities to vary Sunday trading hours in their areas. As hon. Members will know, under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, large shops over 280 square metres may open for only six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays, excluding Easter Sunday, when they must remain closed. I think that this is rather anachronistic. Sunday trading is increasingly popular. I have no interest to declare, but I do have some experience to declare, as somebody who worked for Asda for 13 years. In my time there, Sunday trading hours were the busiest hours of the trading week. Contrary to common belief, Sunday trading hours were also the most popular hours that members of staff wished to work, because for many people Sunday was one of the few days on which they could do additional hours, as they had other people at home looking after their children and so on. If people want to shop on a Sunday or work for certain hours, I do not really see what business the Government have telling them what hours they can do.
	Members may be aware that Scotland has a different regime. Sunday trading is fully deregulated in Scotland, although, under the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, workers have the right to refuse to work on Sundays. I am not aware that the whole world has collapsed in Scotland as a result of deregulating Sunday trading hours. In fact, my experience is that it has proved to be incredibly popular with both customers and workers alike. I would like workers and shoppers in England and Wales to have exactly the same rights to shop or work in shops at a time of their choosing as people in Scotland have.
	My new clause 8 would not give local authorities the opportunity simply to extend Sunday trading hours, because I believe in true localism. My new clause also offers local authorities the opportunity to restrict Sunday trading hours further, if they so wish. If we believe that decisions should be taken locally, we should give local authorities the widest possible ability to make decisions to suit their areas. In areas that need extra regeneration, the opportunity to open for extra hours on a Sunday
	might be welcome, as it may benefit the local authorities in such areas. I do not see why the Government should stand in those authorities’ way if they believe that to be an important part of their regeneration strategy. Other local authorities may wish to restrict Sunday trading hours. I would not advise them to do so—I do not think it would be very popular—but that would be up to them, as democratically elected local authorities. So I hope that the Minister will explain whether he agrees with my proposed extension of the principle of localism. If he does not agree, will he tell me what on earth his objection is to extending a right to the people of England that the people of Scotland already have?
	My other amendment is amendment 15, which relates to elected mayors. I fully support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) which proposes that such elections should be run on the first-past-the-post basis. I ought to declare a slight interest, in that my father is the elected mayor of Doncaster. He was elected under the system described by my hon. Friend, and he would not have been elected under first past the post, because he came second in the first ballot. Some might argue that my views are rather altruistic, in that I do not support a system that has benefited my dad; instead, I want to do what I think is genuinely the right thing for the country. Others might argue that my father being elected under the alternative or supplementary vote system could well be the best possible argument for first past the post. I would not like to comment on that; I will leave it to others to make that decision.

Graham Stringer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I want to press on, because the Government have allocated a shameful amount of time for this debate and other people want to speak.
	I support first past the post, even though my father would have been disadvantaged by it. My amendment 15 proposes that there should be a two-thirds reduction in the number of councillors in local authority areas that have an elected mayor. There are already far too many local councillors; Bradford has 90, for example. The US Senate has only 100 people in it, for goodness’ sake. Why do we need 90 councillors in Bradford? If we are to have an elected mayor as well, why on earth should we have an additional layer of bureaucracy, more expense and more levels of local politicians? If we are going to have an elected mayor, for goodness’ sake let us reduce the number of local councillors at the same time and save the council tax payer some money. I hope that the Government will accept my rather modest amendments, but if they do not, I will certainly be interested to hear their reasons.

Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about first past the post. I am not a supporter of elected mayors but, if we have to have them, they should be elected by the first-past-the-post system. He is absolutely right.
	I rise briefly to speak to my amendments 353 to 357, which would delete clauses 30 to 34. The clauses relate to fines to be imposed by the European Union. I find
	the whole idea of such fines complete anathema—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thought that I might get some support in the Chamber on that point. We could quite easily leave out all reference to the EU, and I would like to see that happen.
	I note that the Minister, in introducing the new clause, said that he had already had discussions with the Local Government Association. The LGA is very concerned about this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) rightly said. I hope that the Government will think again and simply delete any reference to the EU. Rather than giving freedoms to local authorities, their proposals will put an imposition on them. They would place more central control on them, rather than leaving them to their own devices and giving them more freedoms.
	I hope the Minister will think about this and that the Government see fit, during the later stages of the Bill, to delete any reference to the EU. I strongly support the LGA’s view, which was ably set out by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister will give this matter some thought. I shall not press my amendments to a Division, but I hope that he will bear in mind my feelings and those of many other Members.

David Ward: I am grateful for this opportunity to place my views, with which those hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee will already be familiar, on the record, and I apologise for any repetition. I fully support amendment 41; indeed, there are many amendments that I could support, and many more that I would like to have seen that no one else would have supported. I feel strongly about this one, however. It relates to elected mayors and shadow mayors, and to the executive powers of the mayors. Amendment 41 deals with something that symbolises everything that is wrong with the Bill.
	There is nothing worse than waste, and there is nothing worse than a wasted opportunity. The Bill is a colossal wasted opportunity for the House to consider the relationship between central and local government. We have profoundly let down the democratic system by not reviewing that relationship. We could have looked at what other countries do, and agreed some basic principles against which any measures relating to local authorities could have been evaluated. I agree with Professor Stewart and Professor Jones, who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, that this is a centralism Bill, rather than a localism Bill. How different it could have been if the will had been there to make it so.
	Opposition Members will no doubt be delighted to learn that, in my local authority, the Lib Dems lost a seat to Labour. We lost it in an election in which nearly seven out of 10 electors did not turn out to vote. At a time when politics is divided, and when big issues are dividing the nation, we again need to ask profound questions about why people are so reluctant to turn out and vote. We need to ask questions about the quality of the candidates, as well as about the turnout. We also need to ask what the measures in the Bill will do to address the serious democratic deficit in this country. We know the reasons behind the problem. We know that, when we knock on the doors, people say that we are all the same. The reality is that that is largely true. It is hard to be different in local government. The discretion and freedom to be different have disappeared, year by year, Government by Government.
	In Committee, I mentioned local authority budgets. Bradford has a budget of more than £1 billion, yet we end up discussing only £1 million or £2 million. Local politicians expend a lot of hot air disputing those amounts, while the vast majority of the budget is beyond their control. Yes, we are largely all the same. The Bill could have removed barriers and restrictions. I do not understand why, when we are desperate to remove barriers to the private sector to encourage initiative, entrepreneurship, enterprise and freedoms, we do not do the same thing at local government level. Those barriers will remain after the Bill has been passed.
	The Government are still overbearing, arrogant and interfering. They are still ruling by stipulation, by compulsion and by bribery. They provide handouts that local government can spend, but on one thing only. How many times have Members who were formerly councillors known that the only show in town involved doing whatever the Government were funding? They were not given the discretion to spend that money as they wished. The funding would go only to the private finance initiatives or to academies, for example. We, as locally elected councillors, were not given the money and asked how we would like to spend it. Remember the bribery involved in the swimming campaign and the free school meals? The initiatives lasted for one year only, and we had to pick up the tab the year after. They were introduced simply to facilitate ministerial press releases.
	None of this will be changed by the Bill. Councillors are used and abused. The Treasury insists on controlling the finance, and without financial freedom, there is no democratic freedom. The low opinion of local government held by people in this place staggers me; I am appalled by it. An example is the outrageous front-loading of the cuts. Instead of local government being seen as a partner to help us through the financial crisis by contributing to the deficit reduction over a period of time and being asked for help to deal with it, the cuts have been imposed on it from above by a Government who claim to support localism.
	I support amendment 41. My views on elected mayors are, quite frankly, my business and they should be expressed in a ballot if my council decides that that is what it wants to do. I will participate in that debate—not in this place, but where it should take place: in council chambers up and down the country. Yes, we should set parameters and controls; yes, we should demand disclosure, which was mentioned earlier; but for goodness’ sake, let us breathe life back into a vital part of our democratic system.

Annette Brooke: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the next localism Bill. Does he agree that it is important, even for those who might not support the amendments on the shadow mayors and related issues, to ask Ministers to look at these proposals again?

David Ward: Of course I agree.
	Let me conclude by saying that it is time to set local government free. In that respect, the whole Bill, despite some good bits, is a wasted opportunity and thus a complete failure.

Heidi Alexander: I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall limit my comments to a few. I applaud the hon. Member for Bradford East
	(Mr Ward) for his speech. I did not anticipate hearing comments like that from the Government side of the Chamber, but he is a man who says it as it is, and I respect his views and the way he put them.
	I shall focus on two aspects of this group of new clauses and amendments: senior pay policy, dealt with in new clauses 27 and 28, and powers to make supplemental provision, as set out in amendment 37 to clause 5. Bringing transparency to senior council pay is entirely right. I accept that some people might have been paid excessively in some circumstances, but this constant bashing of chief executives and senior council officers by Ministers does a complete disservice to people who do an incredibly difficult job in councils up and down the country. Some of these people will have worked their whole lives in local authorities; others might have left good private sector jobs to work there.

Andrew Percy: The hon. Lady is adopting a strange position in defending the massive increase in pay at the top of the public sector. Does she accept that her Government could have done something about transparency? When she talks about a disservice, is not the real disservice to the electors of our communities who have to pay the bills for these people who have earned incredible amounts of money over the last few years?

Heidi Alexander: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that I accepted pay transparency is a good thing at both the top and the bottom of an organisation. I accept that the previous Government could have brought forward measures to insist on pay transparency and I know that some local authorities were transparent. Many have independent remuneration panels that would take decisions about councillor pay. I know that my own local authority is certainly looking at having an independent panel to review executive pay. My point is that we should shine a light on abuses, but that this constant barrage is disproportionate.
	These measures are, in my view, all about the Secretary of State getting a headline. Listening to him, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that if only 600-odd council chief executives were paid less, the national budget deficit would be dealt with. It will not. This is a complete red herring. Let us take the example of my local authority of Lewisham. The council’s overall pay bill is £280 million, which pays for thousands of staff. The top 32 jobs of senior management account for £4.1 million; the five executive directors and the chief executive cost the council in the region of £1 million. Yes, £1 million is a huge amount of money, but we have to take account of these individuals’ responsibilities and the repercussions they might face if they gave bad advice, took bad decisions or implemented bad management. When politicians make a bad decision, they might lose an election, but council officers doing the same could end up in prison.

Justin Tomlinson: The responsibility of chief officers has not changed. The last Government actively encouraged councils to be rewarded in inspections for being seen to pay high salaries, because that appeared to make the same officers better officers.

Heidi Alexander: I have no experience of that happening. I would be interested to speak to the hon. Gentleman after the debate to learn more about his experience.
	What puzzles me most about this Government’s obsession with senior pay is that it comes at a time when they seem spectacularly unwilling to tackle excessive pay in the private sector. I represent a London constituency and I know that there are bankers, lawyers and accountants who, within five or six years of graduating from university, will be earning £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year. That is not far off the wage of a head of children’s services. I ask whether it can be right to put all the focus on senior council pay.
	I agree with the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers that deal with bringing transparency to low pay. Lewisham is an authority that has led the way on implementing the London living wage. As a result of its London living wage policy, 800 contracted staff are better off from the council’s insistence on seeking invitations from contractors that put in a London living wage bid as well as a regular bid. I am proud of the work that the authority has done on that and I believe that there are ways of encouraging the public sector and local councils to do the same.
	I had wanted to comment on amendment 37, but I am conscious of the time. It is strange how the Government are, drip by drip, telling us which duties they wish to protect—whether it be duties to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, or to provide allotments or whatever. Why did the Government not do this work before they put out their review of burdensome regulations? A couple of weeks ago, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government heard the Minister for Housing and Local Government talk about the Department’s decisive leadership in abolishing the Audit Commission. I would urge the Government to show some leadership in saying which of the “burdens” they value and want to see protected. It seems to be one rule for one thing and a completely different rule for something else. I think it is sloppy and poor government—sadly, I think many of the Bill’s provisions are an example of poor government. I look forward to voting against some clauses and in favour of some amendments when we get the chance.

Zac Goldsmith: We have so little time that I am going to cut straight to the chase; I hope not to take more than a minute or two.
	I speak in favour of new clause 10, which I tabled and which is supported by Members from both sides of the House. It concerns the recall of councillors. I view this as a simple, obvious, “no brainer” idea, which I hope will be met with a nod of approval by both Front-Bench teams. I will briefly make the case for it.
	As Members know, the Government are planning to introduce a recall mechanism for parliamentarians, whereby Members face being removed from office if their constituents so choose. The plans, in my view, do not go nearly far enough. MPs will be subject to recall only if a Committee decides that they have committed an act of serious wrongdoing. Recall is supposed to be about empowering people, not parliamentary Committees, so I shall seek to amend that provision when I have a
	chance. In the meantime, I was pleased that the Secretary of State promised to consider introducing into this Bill a recall mechanism for councillors. That has not happened, so I have done it for him.
	I am fortunate in that my constituency is served by some excellent councillors, but we all know that there are some councillors who do very little for their constituents, so there should surely be a mechanism whereby residents can hold councillors to account during the four years in between elections in the same way as employees are in every other field of human endeavour. It cannot be right to ask Members to vote for measures that will introduce recall for parliamentarians, but not for councillors in local government, which is just as important.
	My new clause would allow for
	“25% or more of the… voters in the constituency of an elected local government member”
	to petition for and trigger a recall election. I think that that strikes the right balance between preventing vexatious recall attempts and empowering local people to hold their elected councillors to account. The new clause would greatly empower local people and would keep councillors on their toes, and I hope that it can be put to the vote so that the House can support it.

Nick Raynsford: I wish to speak, very briefly, to amendments 365 and 366, which I tabled and which relate to standards.
	In his opening remarks on the programme motion, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—who steered the Bill through its Committee stage—expressed a wish to listen to the views of people, whether they were members of the Committee, other interested parties, or people who had given evidence to the Committee. As he knows, an awful lot of people gave evidence, and many who gave evidence on standards gave very interesting evidence. Sadly, however, the Government did not listen to the evidence, including that given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government may be right in saying that there is a case for some streamlining of the standards procedure, and indeed I conceded that in Committee, but I am afraid that they are making a serious mistake in substituting for the existing machinery a framework that is incoherent, that is potentially extremely weak, and that will contain serious anomalies.
	Let us examine those three problems. First, clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to require local authorities to establish a procedure relating to the declaration of interests, a breach of which will involve a criminal liability. Clause 16 allows the establishment of an entirely voluntary framework within which it will be up to a local authority to decide whether to adopt a code of conduct. That could lead to an extraordinary situation. Someone who had failed, perhaps owing to a technicality, to declare an interest as part of the mandatory requirement imposed by Government would be liable for a criminal action, whereas someone who had behaved in a deplorable way—who had bullied people, been dishonest, or behaved shamelessly in the council chamber—could emerge scot-free because the council concerned had chosen not to adopt a code of conduct. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
	Secondly, there will be no code of conduct promoted by Government, like the model code that has existed in the past, that could serve as the default in the event of a local authority’s failure to adopt its own code.
	Thirdly, there is a serious risk that, under clause 16(2), a local authority that currently has a code of conduct could
	“withdraw its existing code of conduct without replacing it.”
	Ministers claimed that they would leave this to local government—that they would do the right thing. At a time when we are all concerned about standards in public life, whether at national or local government level, it is extraordinary that they should produce a half-baked proposal which has not been thought through, which allows loopholes and anomalies to exist, and which—most seriously—undermines the substantial progress that has been made in recent years in improving those standards.
	Although Ministers appear unwilling to accept the case for amendments in the House of Commons, I sincerely hope that Members in another place with real experience of these matters will press amendments to ensure that there is a more coherent, more satisfactory and more demanding framework to maintain standards in public life.

Andrew Percy: I served as a local councillor for 10 years under the previous standards regime, which was an abuse of and an assault on local democracy. As long as councillors do not break any criminal law, it is for the public who elected them to judge their behaviour. I was once referred to the standards board by a political activist for having dared to be a school teacher. The process wasted public money, because someone had to investigate, only to find it was all a load of old guff. It was a politically motivated referral, and there were countless examples of the same thing in my council chamber. Members on all sides reported each other for everything. That is a load of old nonsense, and the sooner it goes the better.
	As for pay policy, I cannot support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). It is incredible that the Opposition should advance such proposals, having done what they have done to public sector pay at the top. I recall that when the Labour authority in Hull was seen as a failing council—I believe that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) was a Minister at the time—we were inspected by officials who told us that we must pay our senior staff more. We ended up with five corporate directors on outrageous salaries of £105,000 a year. [Interruption.] It is true: I was there at the time. We saw a massive explosion in pay. The suggestion that we should take lessons from the Opposition on the subject takes some swallowing.
	I do, however, agree that there should be more transparency in regard to private contractors who work for local authorities. My local council, which was Labour-controlled until two weeks ago but is now Conservative-controlled, has spent £3 million on consultants in the last year, and spent millions of pounds in the preceding years. There should be more openness about how money is spent and how much people in the private sector are making. There is a good point behind the proposal, although, as I have said, it takes a little bit of swallowing given that the last Government presided over the pay explosion at the top.
	Having made those few comments, I will yield to other Members who, I am sure, are keen to make their own contributions.

Martin Vickers: Let me first say how ably my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) spoke to amendment 2, which concerns the first-past-the-post system for electing mayors. I shall certainly support him in the Lobby if he presses it to a vote.
	The Government are clearly in favour of the principle of elected mayors, given that they propose to allow 12 of them in the Bill. What I want to know is why they are making it so difficult for local authorities to initiate the process. Local authorities will rarely, if ever, vote for a referendum on the election of mayors. Because of the cosy relationship that often exists between councillors, they view elected mayors as a threat. However, elected mayors can provide leadership and transparency and revitalise local democracy, and we should do all that we can to encourage them. My amendment 1 would reduce the threshold of the electorate who can petition for an elected mayor from 5% to 2.5%. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of my proposal, and will support it.

Gavin Barwell: I want to comment briefly on three of the amendments that have been discussed so far.
	I have a huge amount of sympathy for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) about a recall procedure for councillors, but, although I hope that the Government will reflect on the points that have been made and that such a procedure will be introduced eventually, I think it would be inappropriate for the House to introduce it before introducing a similar procedure for Members of Parliament.
	I found it incredible that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—who would not take an intervention—should criticise the Government for forcing referendums on the governance structure of local authorities, given that the Government whom she supported forced virtually every council in the country to adopt executive systems of governance with no recourse to referendums.
	Finally—I am conscious of the time—I strongly support the new clause about Sunday trading that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). He and I do not agree on many issues, but we agreed on two today, sentencing and Sunday trading. I also had a lot of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) about first past the post. He spoke of the need for consistency, but his amendment would introduce a big inconsistency between the Mayor of London and other elected mayors. The Government should consider that issue in the context of the results of the referendum.

Andrew Stunell: The Localism Bill does what it says on the label. In Committee we tested and tweaked it, and today we are taking another step forward. I urge my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to give—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Recall elections

‘(1) If 25% or more of the registered voters in the constituency of an elected local government member sign a relevant recall petition then a recall election must be held on the same date as the next election (whether or not a local election) to be held in the constituency of the elected government member, provided that that election is not less than 12 weeks after the threshold has been reached.
	(2) In order for a recall petition to be relevant the appropriate returning officer must be satisfied that—
	(a) the petition has been submitted in accordance with the rules provided for in subsection (3) and;
	(b) there is evidence contained in the petition that the elected local government member has—
	(i) acted in a way which is financially dishonest or disreputable,
	(ii) intentionally misled the body to which he or she was elected,
	(iii) broken any promises made by him or her in an election address,
	(iv) behaved in a way that is likely to bring his or her office into disrepute, or
	(v) lost the confidence of his or her electorate.
	(3) The Secretary of State must lay regulations before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act setting out—
	(a) how notice of intent to petition for recall is to be given,
	(b) how “registered voters” are to be defined for different types of constituency,
	(c) the definition of “appropriate returning officer”,
	(d) the ways in which registered voters can sign a recall petition,
	(e) the ways in which signatures to such petitions will be verified,
	(f) entitlement to vote in, and the conduct of, the recall election,
	(g) rules on any other related matters as considered necessary by the Secretary of State, and
	(h) consequential, saving, transitory or transitional provision (including amendments to existing statutory provision, whenever passed or made).
	(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to returning officers on how to make assessments under subsection (2)(b) within six months of the passing of this Act.
	(5) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers in a recall election is “Should [name of elected local government member] be recalled from [name of body or office]?”.
	(6) If at a recall election more votes are cast in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, then—
	(a) if the elected representative has been elected under a first past the post or alternative vote electoral system, he or she is recalled and a by-election must be held within three months in which the recalled candidate may stand, or
	(b) if the elected representative has been elected under a system of proportional representation, the next candidate on the relevant party list shall take the seat.
	(7) In this section “elected local government member” means any person elected to the Greater London Authority, a county council in England, district council, or London borough council, including an elected mayor of the council; and the Mayor of London.
	(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(9) Subsections (1) and (2) come into force six months after the day on which the regulations under subsection (3) are made.’.—(Zac Goldsmith.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	A Division was called.

Lindsay Hoyle: Division off.
	Question negatived.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Powers to make supplemental provision

Amendment proposed: 37,page4,line22, at end insert—
	‘(6A) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may not be exercised to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply—
	(a) this Part of this Act,
	(b) Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 section 7 or section 13,
	(c) Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 section 23,
	(d) Children Act 1989 Part 3 and Schedule 2,
	(e) Childcare Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2,
	(f) Child Poverty Act 2010 Part 2,
	(g) Equality Act 2010, section 88,
	(h) Equality Act 2010, section 149,
	(i) Care Standards Act 2000,
	(j) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 section 21,
	(k) Transport Act 2000 section 145A,
	(l) Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,
	(m) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007,
	(n) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007,
	(o) Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000,
	(p) Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995,
	(q) Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
	(r) Mental Health Act 1983 Part 8,
	(s) Community Care, Services for Carers and Children Services (Direct Payments) England Regulations 2009,
	(t) Public Health Act 1875,
	(u) Public Health Act 1936,
	(v) Commons Act 2006,
	(w) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
	(x) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40,
	(y) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 25 or section 28E,
	(z) Environment Act 1995 Part 4,
	(z1) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
	(z2) Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949,
	(z3) Hedgerow Regulations 1997,
	(z4) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 66 or section 72,
	(z5) Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 sections 12 and 13,
	(z6) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
	(z7) Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 30,
	(z8) Zoo Licensing Act 1981,
	(z9) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Part 6,
	(z10) Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3,
	(z11) Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 28,
	(z12) Education Act 1996 section 15ZA,
	(z13) Food Safety Act 1990 Parts 1, 2 and 3,
	(z14) Freedom of Information Act 2000,
	(z15) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 section 1,
	(z16) Housing Act 1996 Part 7,
	(z17) Homelessness Act 2002,
	(z18) Housing Act 2004 Part 2,
	(z19) Local Government Act 1972 Part VA, section 99 or section 148,
	(z20) Local Government Act 2000 Part 3 section 21 or section 37,
	(z21) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 Part 1, or
	(z22) Adoption and Children Act 2002.’.—(Barbara Keeley.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 225, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Powers to make supplemental provision

Amendments made: 44,page4,line24, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘consult’.
	Amendment 45,page4,line28, at end insert—
	‘(8) Before making an order under subsection (1) that has effect in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Clause 6
	 — 
	Procedure for orders under section 5

Amendments made: 46,page4,line30, after ‘5(7)’, insert ‘and (8)’.
	Amendment 47,page4,line33, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘undertake’ in line 34.
	Amendment 48,page4,line36, after ‘5(7)’, insert ‘and (8)’.
	Amendment 49,page4,line42, at end insert—
	(ai) the Secretary of State’s reasons for considering that the conditions in section [Limits on power under section 5(1)](2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to the proposals,’.
	Amendment 50,page4,line43, after ‘5(7)’, insert ‘and (8)’.—(Robert Neill.)

Clause 8
	 — 
	General powers of certain fire and rescue authorities

Amendments made: 51,page5,line41, leave out ‘in England’.
	Amendment 52,page6,line17, leave out ‘in England’.
	Amendment 53,page7,line9, at end insert—
	‘“Act” (except in a reference to the Localism Act 2011) includes an Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales;
	“passed” in relation to an Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales means enacted;’.
	Amendment 54,page7,line36, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
	Amendment 55,page7,line39, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
	Amendment 56,page7,line41, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
	Amendment 57,page7,line43, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
	Amendment 58,page7,line46, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
	Amendment 59,page8,line1, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
	Amendment 60,page8,line10, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
	‘appropriate national authority proposing to make the order’.
	Amendment 61,page8,line11, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘consult’ in line 12.
	Amendment 62,page8,line16, leave out ‘the Secretary of State’ and insert ‘that appropriate national authority’.
	Amendment 63,page8,line16, at end insert—
	‘(6A) Subsection (6) does not apply to an order under subsection (3) or (4) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
	(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description, or
	(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description.
	(6B) The appropriate national authority’s power under subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable by the Welsh Ministers so far as it is power to make provision that—
	(a) would be within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly, and
	(b) does not relate to a fire and rescue authority for an area in England.
	(6C) The appropriate national authority’s power under subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable by the Secretary of State so far as it is not exercisable by the Welsh Ministers.
	(6D) The appropriate national authority’s power under subsection (3) or (4) is exercisable—
	(a) in relation to England by the Secretary of State, and
	(b) in relation to Wales by the Welsh Ministers.
	(6E) In exercising power under subsection (1) or (2), the Secretary of State may make provision which has effect in relation to Wales only after having consulted the Welsh Ministers.
	(6F) The Welsh Ministers may submit to the Secretary of State proposals that power of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to Wales should be exercised in accordance with the proposals.
	(6G) In subsections (1) and (2) “statutory provision” means a provision of—
	(a) an Act, or
	(b) an instrument made under an Act,
	and in this subsection “Act” includes an Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales.’.
	Amendment 64,page8,line18, at end insert—
	5CA Limits on power under section 5C(1)
	(1) Provision may not be made under section 5C(1) unless the appropriate national authority making the provision considers that the conditions in subsection (2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to that provision.
	(2) Those conditions are that—
	(a) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision;
	(b) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
	(c) the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
	(d) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
	(e) the provision is not of constitutional significance.
	(3) An order under section 5C(1) may not make provision for the delegation or transfer of any function of legislating.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a “function of legislating” is a function of legislating by order, rules, regulations
	or other subordinate instrument.
	(5) An order under section 5C(1) may not make provision to abolish or vary any tax.’.
	Amendment 65,page8,line19, leave out ‘orders under section 5C’ and insert
	‘Secretary of State’s orders under section 5C(1) and (2)’.
	Amendment 66,page8,line20, after ‘5C(6)’, insert ‘and (6E)’.
	Amendment 67,page8,line21, after ‘order’, insert ‘of the Secretary of State’.
	Amendment 68,page8,line23, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘undertake’ in line 24.
	Amendment 69,page8,line27, after ‘5C(6)’, insert ‘and (6E)’.
	Amendment 70,page8,line33, at end insert—
	(ai) the Secretary of State’s reasons for considering that the conditions in section 5CA(2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to the proposals,’.
	Amendment 71,page8,line34, after ‘5C(6)’, insert ‘and (6E)’.
	Amendment 72,page9,line1, after ‘Provision’, insert
	‘proposed to be made by the Secretary of State’.
	Amendment 73,page9,line4, leave out ‘5C(5)’ and insert ‘5C(6) and (6E)’.
	Amendment 74,page9, leave out lines 6 to 14.
	Amendment 75,page9, line14, at end insert—
	5E Procedure for Welsh Ministers’ orders under section 5C(1) and (2)
	(1) If, as a result of any consultation required by section 5C(6) with respect to a proposed order of the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(1), it appears to the Welsh Ministers that it is appropriate to change the whole or any part of their proposals, they must undertake such further consultation with respect to the changes as they consider appropriate.
	(2) If, after the conclusion of the consultation required by section 5C(6) and subsection (1), the Welsh Ministers consider it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under section 5C(1), they must lay before the National Assembly for Wales—
	(a) a draft of the order, and
	(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals and giving details of—
	(i) the Welsh Ministers’ reasons for considering that the conditions in section 5CA(2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to the proposals,
	(ii) any consultation undertaken under section 5C(6) and subsection (1),
	(iii) any representations received as a result of the consultation, and
	(iv) the changes (if any) made as a result of those representations.
	(3) Provision proposed to be made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(2) may be included in a draft order laid under subsection (2) and, if it is, the explanatory document laid with the draft order must also explain the proposals under section 5C(2) and give details of any consultation undertaken under section 5C(6) with respect to those proposals.
	5F Determining Assembly procedures for drafts laid under section 5E(2)
	‘(1) The explanatory document laid with a draft order under section 5E(2) must contain a recommendation by the Welsh Ministers as to which of the following should apply in relation to the making of an order pursuant to the draft order—
	(a) the negative resolution procedure (see section 5G),
	(b) the affirmative resolution procedure (see section 5H), or
	(c) the super-affirmative resolution procedure (see section 5J).
	(2) The explanatory document must give reasons for the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation.
	(3) Where the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation is that the negative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure applies unless, within the 30-day period—
	(a) the National Assembly for Wales requires the application of the super-affirmative resolution procedure, in which case that procedure applies, or
	(b) in a case not within paragraph (a), the Assembly requires the application of the affirmative resolution procedure, in which case that procedure applies.
	(4) Where the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation is that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure applies unless, within the 30-day period, the National Assembly for Wales requires the application of the super-affirmative resolution procedure, in which case the super-affirmative resolution procedure applies.
	(5) Where the Welsh Ministers’ recommendation is that the super-affirmative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure applies.
	(6) For the purposes of this section, the National Assembly for Wales is to be taken to have required the application of a procedure within the 30-day period if—
	(a) the Assembly resolves within that period that that procedure is to apply, or
	(b) in a case not within paragraph (a), a committee of the Assembly charged with reporting on the draft order has recommended within that period that that procedure should apply and the Assembly has not by resolution rejected that recommendation within that period.
	(7) In this section “the 30-day period” means the 30 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before the National Assembly for Wales under section 5E(2).
	5G Negative resolution procedure for draft laid under section 5E(2)
	‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, “the negative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order laid under section 5E(2) is as follows.
	(2) The Welsh Ministers may make an order in the terms of the draft order subject to the following provisions of this section.
	(3) The Welsh Ministers may not make an order in the terms of the draft order if the National Assembly for Wales so resolves within the 40-day period.
	(4) A committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that the Welsh Ministers not make an order in the terms of the draft order.
	(5) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a draft order, the Welsh Ministers may not make an order in the terms of the draft order unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
	(6) For the purposes of this section an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
	(7) In this section—
	“the 30-day period” has the meaning given by section 5F(7), and
	“the 40-day period” means the 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before the National Assembly for Wales under section 5E(2).
	(8) For the purpose of calculating the 40-day period in a case where a recommendation is made under subsection (4) by a committee of the National Assembly for Wales but the recommendation is rejected by the Assembly under subsection (5), no account is to be taken of any day between the day on which the recommendation was made and the day on which the recommendation was rejected.
	5H Affirmative resolution procedure for draft laid under section 5E(2)
	‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, “the affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order laid under section 5E(2) is as follows.
	(2) If after the expiry of the 40-day period the draft order is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, the Welsh Ministers may make an order in the terms of the draft.
	(3) However, a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(4) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (3) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in the Assembly under subsection (2) unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
	(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if the order contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
	(6) In this section—
	“the 30-day period” has the meaning given by section 5F(7), and
	“the 40-day period” has the meaning given by section 5G(7).
	(7) For the purpose of calculating the 40-day period in a case where a recommendation is made under subsection (3) by a committee of the National Assembly for Wales but the recommendation is rejected by the Assembly under subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any day between the day on which the recommendation was made and the day on which the recommendation was rejected.
	5J Super-affirmative resolution procedure for draft laid under section 5E(2)
	‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, “the super-affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order laid under section 5E(2) is as follows.
	(2) The Welsh Ministers must have regard to—
	(a) any representations,
	(b) any resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, and
	(c) any recommendation of a committee of the Assembly charged with reporting on the draft order,
	made during the 60-day period in relation to the draft order.
	(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Welsh Ministers want to make an order in the terms of the draft order, they must lay before the National Assembly for Wales a statement—
	(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a), and
	(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
	(4) The Welsh Ministers may after the laying of such a statement make an order in the terms of the draft order if it is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
	(5) However, a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the
	draft order is approved by the Assembly under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(6) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (5) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in the Assembly under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
	(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Welsh Ministers wish to make an order consisting of a version of the draft order with material changes, they must lay before the National Assembly for Wales—
	(a) a revised draft order, and
	(b) a statement giving details of—
	(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a), and
	(ii) the revisions proposed.
	(8) The Welsh Ministers may after laying a revised draft order and statement under subsection (7) make an order in the terms of the revised draft order if it is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
	(9) However, a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (7) and before it is approved by the Assembly under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.
	(10) Where a committee of the National Assembly for Wales makes a recommendation under subsection (9) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in the Assembly under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Assembly, rejected by resolution of the Assembly.
	(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
	(12) In this section “the 60-day period” means the 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before the National Assembly for Wales under section 5E(2).
	5K Calculation of time periods
	In calculating any period of days for the purposes of sections 5F to 5J, no account is to be taken of any time during which the National Assembly for Wales is dissolved or during which the Assembly is in recess for more than four days.”’.
	Amendment 76,page9,line15, leave out ‘In’ and insert ‘Omit’.
	Amendment 77,page9,line17, leave out from ‘1972)’ to end of line 19.
	Amendment 78,page9,line19, at end insert—
	‘(2A) In section 60(1) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (meaning of “subordinate legislation”) for “by the Secretary of State under this Act” substitute “under this Act by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers”.’.
	Amendment 79,page9,line23, after ‘order’, insert
	‘made by the Secretary of State’.
	Amendment 80,page9,line24, leave out ‘5D(5)’ and insert ‘5C(6A)’.
	Amendment 81,page9,line25, after ‘order’, insert
	‘made by the Secretary of State’.
	Amendment 82,page9,line27, after ‘purpose,’, insert—
	‘(ba) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 5C(2) that—
	(i) amends any Act or provision of an Act, and
	(ii) is not made in accordance with sections 15 to 19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 as applied by section 5D(3),’.
	Amendment 83,page9,line28, leave out ‘which’ and insert
	‘made by the Secretary of State, other than an order under section 5C, that’.
	Amendment 84,page9,line32, leave out ‘“apart’ and insert ‘“legislation, apart’.
	Amendment 85,page9,line33, leave out ‘“apart’ and insert ‘“legislation made by the Secretary of State, apart’.
	Amendment 86,page9,line39, at end insert—
	‘(4A) In section 60 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (orders and regulations) after subsection (5) insert—
	(6) A statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provisions)—
	(a) an order made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(3), other than one that it is made only for the purpose mentioned in section 5C(6A),
	(b) an order made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(4), other than one that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose,
	(c) an order made by the Welsh Ministers under section 5C(2) that—
	(i) amends any Act or provision of an Act or amends any Act, or Measure, of the National Assembly for Wales or provision of such an Act or Measure, and
	(ii) is not made in accordance with sections 5F to 5K, or
	(d) subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers, other than an order under section 5C, that amends any Act or provision of an Act,
	may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.
	(7) A statutory instrument containing any other subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers, apart from—
	(a) an order under section 5C(1),
	(b) an order under section 5C(2) that is made in accordance with sections 5F to 5K, or
	(c) an order under section 30 or 61,
	is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
	(4B) In section 62 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (application of Act in Wales)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(b) (references to Secretary of State in sections 60 and 61) for “sections 60 and” substitute “section”,
	(b) after subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to Parts 1 to 6 does not include—
	(a) sections 5A and 5B,
	(b) sections 5C and 5CA,
	(c) section 5D, and
	(d) sections 5E to 5K.”, and
	(c) omit subsection (3) (disapplication of section 60(4) and (5)).’.—(Robert Neill.)

Clause 9
	 — 
	Fire and rescue authorities: charging

Amendments made: 87,page10,line4, leave out ‘in England’.
	Amendment 88,page10,line5, leave out ‘in England’.
	Amendment 89,page10,line28, after ‘(1)’, insert ‘and section 18B(1)’.
	Amendment 90,page11,line16, leave out ‘in England’.
	Amendment 91,page11,line22, after ‘State’, insert
	‘in relation to fire and rescue authorities in England, and the Welsh Ministers in relation to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,’.
	Amendment 92,page11,line39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 12.
	Amendment 93,page12,line5, leave out ‘this section’ and insert ‘subsection (3)’.
	Amendment 94,page12,line15, leave out ‘In’ and insert ‘Omit’.
	Amendment 95,page12,line15, leave out from ‘charging)’ to end of line 18.
	Amendment 96,page12,line18, at end insert—
	‘(3A) In section 62 (application of Act in Wales) before subsection (2) insert—
	(1B) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to Parts 1 to 6 does not include sections 18A to 18C.”’.
	Amendment 97,page12,line19, after ‘(3)’, insert
	‘in relation to England or Wales’.
	Amendment 98,page12,line21, after ‘in England’, insert
	‘or (as the case may be) Wales’.—(Robert Neill.)

Schedule 2
	 — 
	New Arrangements with respect to Governance of English Local Authorities

Amendment proposed: 2,page199, leave out lines 30 to 43 and insert
	‘The elected mayor is to be returned under the simple majority system.’.—(John  Stevenson .)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 29, Noes 279.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2
	 — 
	New arrangements with respect to governance of english local authorities

Amendment proposed: 41, page211,line18, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 213.—(Barbara Keeley.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 218, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	amendments consequential upon new arrangements for local authority governance in england

Amendments made:99,page223,line4, leave out ‘and
	“mayor and council manager executive”’.
	Amendment 100,page223,line5, leave out ‘and
	“mayor and council manager executive”’.
	Amendment 101,page223,line10, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
	Amendment 102,page224,line21, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
	Amendment 103,page225,line20, leave out ‘In section’ and insert—
	‘(1) Section’.
	Amendment 104,page225,line20, leave out ‘in’ and insert
	‘is amended as follows.
	‘(2) In’.
	Amendment 105,page225,line21, at end insert—
	‘(3) In subsection (3) in the definition of “area committee” for the words from “means—” to “in Wales,” substitute “means”.
	(4) Omit subsections (4) and (5).
	(5) In subsection (6) omit “in Wales”.’.
	Amendment 106,page226,line23, at end insert—
	‘(2A) In subsection (2ZA) omit “in Wales”.’.
	Amendment 107,page226,line25, leave out ‘, (b) and (e)’ and insert ‘and (b)’.
	Amendment 108,page226,line26, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	(b) in paragraph (e) for the words from “committee—” to “a joint overview and scrutiny committee” substitute “committee”.’.
	Amendment 109,page226,line28, leave out ‘sections’.
	Amendment 110,page226,line28, leave out ‘section 21A’ and insert ‘21A and 21B’.
	Amendment 111,page226,line33, at end insert—
	‘(5A) In subsection (10A) omit “in Wales”.’.
	Amendment 112,page226,line34, leave out ‘omit paragraph (aa).’ and insert ‘—
	(a) in paragraph (aa) omit the words from “by virtue of” to “England) or”, and
	(b) in paragraph (c) omit the words from the beginning to “in Wales”.’.
	Amendment 113,page226,line35, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
	Amendment 114,page226,line42, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
	‘(2) In subsection (3) omit the words from “(in the case of a local authority in England” to “Wales)”.
	(3) In subsection (6)(a) omit the words from “section 236” to “2007 or”.
	(4) Omit subsections (10) and (11).
	(5) In subsection (12) omit “in Wales”.’.
	Amendment 115,page227,line3, leave out paragraph 29.
	Amendment 116,page227,line7, leave out ‘Omit section’ and insert—
	‘(1) Section’.
	Amendment 117,page227,line8, after ‘information)’, insert
	‘is amended as follows.
	‘(2) In subsection (1)(b) omit sub-paragraph (ii).
	(3) In subsection (2) omit “or providing a copy of the document to a relevant partner authority”.
	(4) In subsection (6)—
	(a) in the definition of “exempt information”—
	(i) omit “section 246 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or”, and
	(ii) at the end insert “and”, and
	(b) omit the definition of “relevant partner authority”.’.
	Amendment 118,page227,line10, at end insert—
	32A (1) Section 21F (as inserted by the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011) (Wales: notifying designated body of report or recommendations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the title for “Wales: notifying” substitute “Notifying”.
	(3) In subsection (1) omit “in Wales”.’.
	Amendment 119,page227,line11, after ‘21F’, insert
	‘(as inserted by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010)’.
	Amendment 120,page227,line12, at end insert—
	33A In the title of section 21G (Wales: designated persons) for “Wales: designated” substitute “Designated”.’.
	Amendment 121,page227,line16, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
	‘(3) In subsection (12A)—
	(a) for the words from “Secretary” to “Wales),” substitute “Welsh Ministers”, and
	(b) in paragraph (a) omit the words from “, or under” to “section 21B,”.’.
	Amendment 122, page 227, line 31, leave out paragraph 39.
	Amendment 123, page 227, line 33, leave out paragraph 40.
	Amendment 124, page 227, line 37, leave out paragraph 41 and insert—
	41 Omit section 31 (alternative arrangements).’.
	Amendment 125,page228,line5, leave out paragraph 42 and insert—
	42 Omit section 32 (alternative arrangements).’.
	Amendment 126,page228,line15, leave out paragraph 43.
	Amendment 127,page228,line18, at end insert—
	43A (1) Section 33ZA (Wales: changing governance arrangements) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading for “Wales: changing” substitute “Changing”.
	(3) Omit “in Wales,”.’.
	Amendment 128,page228,line19, leave out from ‘arrangements)’ to end of line 21.
	Amendment 129,page231,line37, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 16
	 — 
	voluntary codes of conduct

Amendments made: 130,page16,line18, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
	Amendment 131,page16,line19, leave out
	‘any manner that it considers appropriate’
	and insert
	‘such manner as it considers is likely to bring the adoption, revision or withdrawal of the code of conduct to the attention of persons who live in its area’.—(Greg Clark.)

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Further warning notices

‘(1) This section applies to a local or public authority which has been given a notice under section 32 in respect of an EU financial sanction which is or includes a penalty payment.
	(2) Before imposing a requirement on a local or public authority to which this section applies to make a further payment under this Part, a Minister of the Crown must give a further
	warning notice to the authority and follow the procedures set out in that notice (subject to any changes to those procedures made under subsection (8)).
	(3) A further warning notice is a notice stating that the Minister believes—
	(a) that acts of that authority may have caused or contributed to the continuing infraction of EU law for which the EU financial sanction in question was imposed; and
	(b) that, if acts of that authority did cause or contribute to that continuing infraction of EU law, it would be appropriate to consider requiring the authority to make a further payment under this Part in respect of any relevant periodic payments.
	(4) In this section “relevant periodic payments” means periodic payments falling due from the United Kingdom as part of the EU financial sanction in question which—
	(a) have not already been the subject of an EU financial sanction notice given to the authority; and
	(b) fall due before a date specified in the further warning notice.
	(5) The date so specified must not be later than the day on which the further warning notice is given to the authority in question.
	(6) The warning notice must also—
	(a) set out the Minister’s reasons for making the statements mentioned in subsection (3);
	(b) if the Minister thinks it appropriate to do so, specify the amount of the payment the Minister considers the authority would be required to pay on the assumption that the relevant circumstances have not changed since the most recent EU financial sanction notice was given to the authority;
	(c) set out the procedures for determining—
	(i) whether the authority should be required to make a payment in respect of any relevant periodic payments, and
	(ii) the amount of any payment the authority is to be required to make;
	(d) invite the authority to make representations to the Minister about—
	(i) any change of circumstances since the most recent EU financial sanction notice, or
	(ii) anything else that may be relevant to the determination of the matters mentioned in paragraph (c)(i) and (ii).
	(7) The further warning notice may contain such other information as the Minister considers appropriate (including, in particular, anything of a description mentioned in section 31(3)(b) to (e)).
	(8) The Minister may, before the matters mentioned in subsection (6)(c)(i) and (ii) are determined, give the authority a notice stating any changes that the Minister has decided to make to any procedures or other information set out in the further warning notice.
	(9) A further warning notice given to a local or public authority may be withdrawn at any time before the matters mentioned in subsection (6)(c)(i) and (ii) are determined, but this does not prevent another further warning notice being given to the authority.’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Further EU financial sanction notices

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may give a further EU financial sanction notice to a local or public authority to which section [Further warning notices] applies in respect of any relevant periodic payments (within the meaning of that section).
	(2) A further EU financial sanction notice may be given only if the Minister is satisfied that acts of that authority have caused or contributed to the continuing infraction of EU law for which the EU financial sanction in question was imposed.
	(3) Section 32(2) and (3) to (5) apply to a further EU financial sanction notice as they apply to an EU financial sanction notice under section 32.
	(4) In the application of those provisions to a further EU financial sanction notice, references to the total amount of the sanction are to be read as referring to the total amount of the relevant periodic payments that are the subject of the notice.’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Clause 30
	 — 
	power to require local or public authorities to make payments
	 — 
	in respect of certain eu financial sanctions

Amendments made: 132,page22,line7, leave out ‘260’ and insert ‘260(2)’.
	Amendment 133,page22,line14, at end insert ‘; or
	(b) in the case of an EU financial sanction that is or includes a penalty payment, by a further EU financial sanction notice under section [Further EU financial sanction notices] given by the Minister to that authority after complying with the requirements of section [Further warning notices].’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 31
	 — 
	Warning notices

Amendments made: 134,page23,line29, at end insert—
	‘(3A) If the EU financial sanction to which the warning notice relates is or includes a penalty payment, the sanction is to be treated for the purposes of the warning notice as excluding any periodic payment which falls due from the United Kingdom on or after a date specified in the warning notice.
	(3B) The date so specified must not be later than the day on which the warning notice is given to the authority in question.’.
	Amendment 135,page23,line39, leave out ‘a further’ and insert ‘another’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 32
	 — 
	eu financial sanction notices

Amendments made: 136,page24,line1, at end insert ‘and the total amount of that sanction,’.
	Amendment 137,page24,line10, at end insert—
	‘(2A) If the EU financial sanction to which the notice relates is or includes a penalty payment, the sanction is to be treated for the purposes of the notice as excluding any periodic payment which falls due from the United Kingdom on or after the date specified under section 31(3A) in the warning notice given to the authority.’.
	Amendment 138,page24,line11, leave out ‘specified in the notice’ and insert
	‘required to be paid by the authority’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 33
	 — 
	meaning of “local or public authority”

Amendments made: 139,page24,line, at end insert—
	‘(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.’.
	Amendment 140,page24,line37, at end insert—
	‘(4) The following may not be designated under subsection (3)—
	(a) either House of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown or a United Kingdom government department;
	(b) a court or tribunal.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 34
	 — 
	interpretation of part: general

Amendments made: 141,page24,line41, at end insert
	‘or section [Further EU financial sanction notices]’.
	Amendment 142,page25,line3, leave out
	‘an obligation under the EU treaties’
	and insert
	‘a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union made under Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’.
	Amendment 143,page25,line6, at end insert—
	‘(2) For the purposes of this Part—
	(a) references to a periodic payment, in relation to an EU financial sanction that is or includes a penalty payment, are to a payment due under the terms of the penalty payment; and
	(b) a periodic payment is to be regarded as the subject of an EU financial sanction notice given to a local or public authority if it is included in the sum specified in such a notice as the total amount of the EU financial sanction to which the notice relates;
	and it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (b) whether the EU financial sanction notice in question is given under section32 or section [Further EU financial sanction notice].’.—(Greg  Clark .)

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Applications for planning permission: local finance considerations

‘(1) Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications for planning permission: general considerations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) (local planning authority to have regard to material considerations in dealing with applications) for the words from “to the provisions” to the end substitute “to—
	(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
	(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and
	(c) any other material considerations.”
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	“(2A) Subsection (2)(b) does not apply in relation to Wales.”
	(4) After subsection (3) insert—
	“(4) In this section—
	“local finance consideration” means—
	(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or(b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy;
	“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
	“relevant authority” means—
	(a) a district council;(b) a county council in England;(c) the Mayor of London;(d) the council of a London borough;(e) a Mayoral development corporation;(f) an urban development corporation;(g) a housing action trust;(h) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(i) the Broads Authority;(j) a National Park authority in England;(k) the Homes and Communities Agency; or(l) a joint committee established under section 29 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”’.—
	(Greg Clark.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Greg Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Sustainable development
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must, not later than six months after this Act is passed, make provision in regulations to—
	(a) define sustainable development in the planning context, and
	(b) incorporate the five principles of sustainability as set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy—
	(i) living within environmental limits;
	(ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
	(iii) achieving a sustainable economy;
	(iv) promoting good governance; and
	(v) using sound science responsibly
	into planning law and guidance.
	(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult such organisations and persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’.
	New clause 4—Community Right of Appeal
	‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—
	“(2A) Where a local planning authority grants an application for planning permission and—
	(a) the authority has publicised the application as not being in accordance with the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or
	(b) the application is one in which the authority has an interest as defined in section 316;
	certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State, provided any one of the conditions in subsection (2C) are met.
	(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) are—
	(a) the ward councillor for the area (if that councillor has lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority), or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by unanimity;
	(b) any parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F, covering or adjoining the area of land to which the application relates, by two-thirds majority voting; or
	(c) any overview and scrutiny committee, by two-thirds majority voting.
	(2C) The conditions are:
	(a) Section 61W(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies to the application;
	(b) the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment; and
	(c) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission.”.
	(3) Section 79 is amended as follows—
	(a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “authority”, insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;
	(b) in subsection (6), after “land”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B)).”.’.
	New clause 5—Powers of the Secretary of State
	‘(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that a statutory provision (whenever passed or made) is creating uncertainty for local authorities in the discharge of their planning functions or is a matter of public dispute between local planning authorities and other relevant bodies, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend, repeal, revoke or disapply that provision.
	(2) The power under subsection (1) may by exercised in relation to—
	(a) all local authorities,
	(b) particular local authorities, or
	(c) particular descriptions of local authority.
	(3) The power under subsection (1) to amend or disapply a statutory provision includes power to amend or disapply a statutory provision for a particular period.
	(4) In this section “statutory provision” means a provision of an Act.
	(5) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a) such local authorities
	(b) such representatives of local government, and
	(c) such other persons (if any), as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(6) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
	New clause 6—The purpose of planning
	‘(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
	(2) Before section 1 insert—
	“A1 Purpose of Planning
	(1) The purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development.
	(2) Any person exercising functions and duties under the planning Acts must do so with the objective of achieving sustainable development and shall have regard in doing so to any guidance given for that purpose by the Secretary of State.
	A2 Interpretation
	‘(1) In this Act—
	(a) ‘sustainable development’ means development that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs including the application of the following principles:
	(i) living within environmental limits;
	(ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
	(iii) achieving a sustainable economy;
	(iv) promoting good governance;
	(v) using sound science responsibly;
	(b) ‘the planning Acts’ means—
	(i) the Localism Act 2011;
	(ii) the Planning Act 2008;
	(iii) this Act;
	(iv) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
	(v) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
	(vi) the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; and
	(vii) the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.”’.
	New clause 7—Removal of permitted area restrictions
	‘(1) A relevant local authority may consider and, if it thinks fit, grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate and may do so regardless of whether or not—
	(a) the premises to which the application relates are situated in the area of the relevant local authority which issued the licence; and
	(b) the area of the relevant local authority in which those premises are situated was a permitted area when the converted casino premises licence was originally issued.
	(2) Subsection (1) shall not require a relevant local authority to consider any application to vary a converted casino premises licence if that local authority has passed a resolution under section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005 (resolution not to issue casino licences) and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.
	(3) In Schedule 4 to the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006 (transitional provisions), for sub-paragraph (13) of paragraph 65 (application of the Gambling Act 2005 to casino premises licences granted on a conversion application) substitute—
	“(13) An application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate shall be made—
	(a) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of the licensing authority which issued the licence, to that licensing authority; or
	(b) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of another licensing authority, to that other licensing authority,
	and section 213(f) (definition of licensing authority) shall apply to such an application as if the licensing authority considering such an application under paragraph (b) was the authority which issued that licence.
	(14) Nothing in paragraph (13)(b) shall require a licensing authority to consider or grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate if—
	(a) the premises are wholly or partly situated in the area of a licensing authority which did not issue the licence; and
	(b) the licensing authority has resolved under section 166 not to issue casino premises licences and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.”.
	(4) In this section—
	“converted casino premises licence” has the same meaning as in the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006;
	“permitted area” means the area of a local authority which was a permitted area for the purposes of the Gaming Act 1968;
	“relevant local authority” means a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland which is a licensing authority under the Gambling Act 2005.’.
	New clause 11—Transfer of generating station consent powers to Welsh Ministers
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer to the Welsh Ministers those functions of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Marine Management Organisation which relate to applications for an order granting development consent for the construction or extension of generating stations in Wales or in waters in or adjacent to Wales up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.
	(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid within 12 months of the passing of this Act and are subject to the negative resolution procedure.’.
	New clause 29—Retail diversity scheme
	‘(1) In Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 after section 15 insert—
	15A (1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a scheme to be known as their retail diversity scheme.
	(2) The retail diversity scheme must form part of the Local Development Scheme within two years of the Local Development Scheme being published or within two years of this Act being passed, whichever is later.
	(3) The scheme must—
	(a) define a network and hierarchy of retail centres in the local authority area,
	(b) assess the need for development in retail centres,
	(c) identify sites for development based on the sequential approach, and
	(d) promote retail diversity.
	(4) In this section—
	(a) ‘retail diversity’ means a mix of retail provision that meets the requirements of the local catchment area in terms of range and quality of comparison and convenience retail businesses;
	(b) ‘sequential approach’ means that local planning authorities must identify sites that are suitable, available and viable for development in the following order—
	(i) locations in appropriate existing centres;
	(ii) edge of centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected to existing retail centres;
	(iii) out of centre sites with preference given to sites well served by a choice of transport and are closest to an existing centre.
	(5) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the scheme as he thinks appropriate.
	(6) Such a direction must contain the Secretary of State’s reasons for giving it.
	(7) The local planning authority must consult with the local community in developing the scheme.
	(8) The local community as defined under subsection (7) must include—
	(a) a parish council or parish councils authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
	(b) a ‘qualifying body’ authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
	(c) any other local person at the discretion of the local planning authority.
	(9) Where a retail planning application is submitted and there is no retail diversity scheme in place the applicant must provide a statement to the local planning authority that sets out how the development impacts on the criteria identified in subsection (3); and the local planning authority must consult the local community as defined in subsection (8) before coming to a decision on the application.”’.
	New clause 30—Planning consent for betting offices
	‘(1) That, notwithstanding any existing statutory provision, a local authority may require planning consent to be applied for pursuant to section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and granted prior to the establishment of, or change of use of premises or land to establish, a betting office in that local authority’s area.
	(2) “Betting office” means premises, other than a track within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005, in respect of which a betting premises licence under Part 8 of that Act has effect.’.
	New clause 31—Change of use class for betting offices
	‘The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 is amended as follows—
	‘(1) In article 3(6) (exclusion from use classes), at end add—
	“(n) as a betting office”.
	(2) In Part A (Use Classes) of the Schedule to the principal Order, in Class A2(c) omit “(including use as a betting office)”.
	(3) “Betting office” means premises, other than a track within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005, in respect of which a betting premises licence under Part 8 of that Act has effect.’.
	New clause 32—Amendment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
	‘In section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents)—
	(a) leave out “(taken as a whole)”,
	(b) leave out from “contribute” to “change” and insert—
	(i) achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008;
	(ii) meet current national policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change, in relation to that area.’.
	New clause 34—Guidance on opencast mining: separation zones etc.
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the national planning policy for opencast mining in England within six months of this Act being passed.
	(2) The guidance must require a minimum separation zone of 500 metres between the site of an opencast mine and the nearest residential property, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
	(3) Mineral planning authorities in England must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when fulfilling their functions.
	(4) In this section “opencast mining” means the working of minerals by opencast operations and the carrying out of operations incidental to such working.’.
	New clause 35—Scope of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (No.2)
	‘The Secretary of State must within 12 months of this Act being passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”) removing permitted development rights specified in neighbourhood development orders from the scope of the GPDO.’.
	New clause 36—Scope of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (No.1)
	‘The Secretary of State must within 12 months of this Act being passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”) removing land or premises used or formerly used as a public house from the scope of the GPDO.’.
	Government amendment 144.
	Amendment 293,clause 90, page61,line6, at end insert
	‘including a County Council, an Integrated Transport Authority for the area or a Marine Plan Authority.’.
	Government amendments 145 to 147.
	Amendment 294,page61,line13, after ‘undertaken’, insert
	‘where issues or impacts cross administrative boundaries and with the objective of achieving sustainable development’.
	Government amendment 148.
	Amendment 295,page61,line15, at end insert—
	‘(ab) the preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance.’.
	Government amendment 149.
	Amendment 297,page61,line17, at end insert—
	‘(d) the preparation of the Local Transport Plan;
	(e) the preparation of marine plans; and
	(f) other activities that support the planning of development, so far as relating to the development and use of land or sea.’.
	Government amendment 150.
	Amendment 296,page61,line18, leave out from ‘land’ to end of line 20 and insert
	‘and strategic infrastructure and in particular the preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance.’.
	Amendment 298,page61,line20, at end insert—
	‘(3A) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) must involve—
	(a) a local planning authority who is also a member of a Local Enterprise Partnership as approved by the Secretary of State; and
	(b) every other person within subsection (1).
	(3B) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) includes in particular—
	(a) the collection of evidence on issues defined in subsection (3C);
	(b) the preparation of policy guidance in relation to issues defined in subsection (3C); and
	(c) any other activities that support joint infrastructure planning.
	(3C) For the purpose of subsection (3B) the issues to be addressed include—
	(a) housing needs;
	(b) climate mitigation and adaptation and in particular flood risk;
	(c) economic development including retail needs;
	(d) energy needs and capacity;
	(e) biodiversity;
	(f) natural resource use including water management; and
	(g) transport.
	(3D) The person or bodies defined in subsection (1) must exercise the function of Joint Infrastructure Planning with the aim of achieving sustainable development and must act under guidance, including as to the meaning of sustainable development, as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.’.
	Government amendments 151 to 156.
	Amendment 299,page61,line36, at end insert—
	‘(7) In this section—
	(a) “marine plan” has the same meaning as in section 51 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
	(b) “marine plan authority” has the same meaning as in section 50 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
	(c) “sea” has the same meaning as in section 42 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
	(8) The fulfilment of the duty in subsection (1) shall be regarded as a material consideration by an independent examiner carrying out functions under section 20(7) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.’.
	Government amendments 157 and 158.
	Amendment 369,clause 95, page66,line33, leave out from ‘levy)’ to end of line 38 and insert ‘in subsection (2), after second ‘ensure’, leave out to the end of the subsection and insert
	‘that owners and developers of land make a financial contribution to support communities in the area in which their development is situated, including the provision of infrastructure and the building, improvement and renovation of housing.’.
	Government amendments 159 and 160.
	Amendment 6,schedule 9, page289,line23, after ‘live’, insert ‘, or businesses registered,’.
	Amendment 7,page289,line26, after ‘live’, insert ‘, or businesses registered,’.
	Amendment 8,page289,line27, at end insert—
	(ba) the organisation or body is competent to undertake the task of preparing a neighbourhood plan with appropriate professional support.’.
	Amendment 9,page289,line27, at end insert—
	(ba) the organisation or body is representative of different sections of the community.’.
	Amendment 10,page289,line28, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘12’.
	Government amendments 161 to 163.
	Amendment 359,page292,line25, at end insert
	‘except for the winning and working of minerals in, on or under land by surface working and any associated activity.’.
	Government amendments 164 to 168.
	Amendment 301,page298,line6, at end insert—
	‘(1A) A neighbourhood development plan must include policies to—
	(a) achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008;
	(b) meet current national policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change, in relation to that area.’.
	Government amendments 169 and 170.
	Amendment 12,schedule 10, page300,line38,
	(h) imposing a duty to conduct an equalities impact assessment in line with the Equality Act 2010.’.
	Government amendments 171 to 174.
	Amendment 11,page303,line14, at end insert—
	‘(1A) Any person who makes written representations seeking to change a neighbourhood development order must (if he or she so requests) be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.’.
	Government amendments 175 to 182.
	Amendment 371,clause 102, page72,line14, leave out ‘majority’ and insert ‘all’.
	Amendment 372,page72,line15, at end insert
	‘and within a radius of a quarter of a mile from the site of the application’.
	Amendment 370,schedule 13, page327,line24, at end insert—
	55A In section 115(1) after ‘associated development’, insert ‘, except where the associated development is the carrying out or construction of surface works, boreholes or pipes on a site all of which falls within the area of a single local planning authority, where consent for such works should be required from the local planning authority.’.
	Government amendments 184 and 258.

Greg Clark: It is a pleasure to be debating planning issues again. I am sorry that that is occasioning an exodus from the Chamber, as I think it is one of the most fascinating parts of the Bill. I cannot promise to emulate the winding-up speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) who, in 30 seconds, gave the finest speech that I have ever heard him give, but I will endeavour to reach those high standards.
	I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in his place to respond. Those of us who served on the Bill Committee have missed our daily dose of historical education and elucidation, and I dare say that Members who were not on the Committee are in for a treat tonight.
	We have a large group of amendments to discuss and so as to avoid the fate of my hon. Friend, I will try to say something about as many as possible of them in my opening remarks so that it may not be necessary to expand at length later in the debate. We made good progress in Committee on this part of the Bill. There was a shared understanding that there were problems with the planning system that have grown up over time, which the Bill provides an opportunity to address. It is not a matter of party political contention that the persistently observed problems with the planning system centre around the fact that over recent years it has been too top-down. People have felt that planning is something that has been done to them, rather than something in which they have had a say or which they have had a chance to influence.
	There is something about the British people which means that if they feel imposed upon, bullied and hustled, they will kick out against that and use every means at their disposal to frustrate it. That has led to what all of us as Members of Parliament have seen over recent years—a rising sense of antipathy to the planning process, often leading to quite emotional exchanges and people feeling very bruised about the system under which they operate. The purpose of the Bill is to remove some of that top-down imposition and provide greater opportunities for communities to have their say.
	The second observation that most people share is that too often when developments take place in communities, there is inadequate provision for infrastructure and inadequate attention to accommodating the development that takes place. Again, that leads local people to be more inclined to oppose a development because they are fearful that their community will not have the capacity to resolve some of the difficulties that development will bring.
	The Bill attempts to address both those concerns. Among its headline measures, it replaces the regional arrangements that have been in place for some years and introduces instead a duty to co-operate that brings local authorities together in a more natural way. Rather than giving an administrative solution to some of the problems, it allows people to collaborate, discuss and come to resolutions of larger than local issues. It strengthens the requirements for pre-application scrutiny, introduces neighbourhood planning, abolishes the Infrastructure Planning Commission and returns powers ultimately to Ministers through a major infrastructure planning unit.

Clive Betts: On the abolition of everything that is regional, which is clearly Government policy and has been for some time, the Minister has just indicated that the duty to co-operate was the central plank that would replace on some sort of strategic basis the regional dimension. With hindsight, does he think the Government gave enough attention and thought to how the duty to co-operate should be formulated and how it should work in practice? There seems to have been an awful lot of criticism from everybody with an interest in these matters about the Government’s position in the Bill.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I know that as Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, he has taken a great interest in these matters. I have always been clear that the Bill represents a major change and it behoves any Minister from whatever party to listen to representations and to seek to improve what is a different way of solving a classic problem—planning issues that have a larger than local dimension to them. The previous Government attempted a resolution through regional arrangements. We formed a view, for better or for worse. Some of us on the Government Benches thought that those arrangements should not have been entered into in the first place. Those on the Opposition Benches would reflect, I think, that the arrangements have had their day and should be replaced with a means of addressing larger than local issues that is robust and captures the need for strategic planning. I will go straight to the amendments that relate to that—Government amendments 144 to 158—and say something about the Opposition’s amendments as I do so.
	We accepted that there was an opportunity to strengthen the duty to co-operate that was set out in the Bill as originally drafted. Indeed, I perhaps agree that a minimalist view was taken of that duty. We have replaced it with something that enjoys support from a wide range of groups, having reached a form that they endorse as a useful resolution to some of these matters. I pay tribute to the effort and work that many groups outside the House have put into strengthening the duty to co-operate. It would be churlish not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who approached these matters in a similar vein; the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee provided a basis on which to discuss these matters and to make progress.
	The duty to co-operate will be significantly strengthened by the amendments that we, as promised, have brought forward. They are modelled closely on what we said was appropriate in Committee and what the Royal Town Planning Institute has proposed. As the professional planning body, it was the organisation that worked most closely on this, but a wide range of other outside bodies were involved, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition, which includes the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Town and Country Planning Association. In particular, we have taken up their suggestions, which were echoed in some of the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, to make clearer the application to cross-boundary issues and to the marine planning system, which needs to be addressed. We have also taken input from the Planning Officers Society, whose members will be charged with meeting the duty to co-operate. As a result of its suggestion, our amendment proposes to put
	a reference to county councils on to the face of the Bill. That deals with one of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments that he will no doubt talk to shortly.
	The combined effect has been to create a much stronger duty to co-operate that covers all authorities and a proposed list of prescribed bodies that themselves would be subject to that duty, because planning matters clearly concern not only local authorities, but other public bodies. I know from speaking with councils up and down the country that one of the frustrations is that they sometimes feel that they have not had the full and enthusiastic co-operation of other public bodies in producing plans that are clearly relevant to them.
	I have placed in the Library of the House our draft list of bodies to be included in addition to local authorities. They include the Environment Agency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, Natural England, the Mayor of London, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Homes and Communities Agency, primary care trusts, the Marine Management Organisation, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Highways Agency, Transport for London, integrated transport authorities and highways authorities. I think that it is absolutely right that those public bodies should be required to give every co-operation to local authorities in producing strategic plans that are larger than local plans for their area.
	We also propose in these amendments an enabling power that will require all bodies that are subject to the duty to co-operate to have regard to the activities of other bodies when preparing plans that may not have a public character. Foremost among these are local enterprise partnerships. We intend to identify local enterprise partnerships as bodies that the prescribed bodies with the duty to co-operate must take into account and with which they will need to co-operate fully.
	The duty to co-operate applies to the preparation of all development plan documents and, in particular, it requires engagement to maximise effectiveness. This cannot be a minimal engagement that simply responds to a questionnaire, which it was feared the original formulation might lead to. There must be active engagement to maximise the effectiveness of all relevant development plan documents. It applies to all strategic issues, which will be interpreted as issues that cross at least two local authority planning areas. It refers to sustainable development, because we know that the environment, in particular, does not stop at local authority boundaries and continues way beyond them, so it is absolutely right that there should be a requirement to co-operate on that. Infrastructure requirements typically go beyond local authority boundaries as well. It requires consideration to be given to the preparation of joint plans and development documents. In particular, I hope and expect that local enterprise partnerships will use their planning powers to pool some of their policies relating to the development of the economy so that they will have attractive, appealing and clear pro-growth policies, especially in areas where there is a need to attract new employers.
	The crucial test of the duty to co-operate is the soundness of the plan. If the inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with, the plan will be unsound and cannot be adopted. Therefore, there is an absolute safeguard that this is not just a voluntary activity, but that it is absolutely at the heart of plan making, and rightly so, because the strategic level is very important to emphasise.
	The amendment, which is the product of extensive consultation with the professional bodies and some of the other representative bodies, anticipates and deals with many of the amendments that Opposition Front Benchers might be minded to move. If I have time at the end of our considerations on this group, I will respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. In particular, amendment 293 deals with the inclusion of county councils, and that is covered by our amendments. He will have heard me mention integrated transport authorities and the marine planning organisations in the list of prescribed organisations that I intend to publish. Sustainable development is very clearly marked there and is explicitly referenced, as are local transport plans and marine plans.
	On this new clause, I can do no better than quote the briefing on that which the Royal Town Planning Institute made available to Members:
	“The RTPI has worked closely with the Government on strengthening the arrangements for planning at the larger than local level and believes that the amended Clause 90 should be supported.”
	It states that the Government are
	“to be congratulated for listening on this issue.”
	I hope that we have been able to discharge the commitments that I made in Committee to establish a replacement for the regional arrangements that is rather more robust than the original version.
	Let me turn to some of the other new clauses and amendments tabled by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, has asked that at this stage we consider the specific question of whether a definition of sustainable development should be included in the Bill. New clause 2 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and her colleagues, and those on the Opposition Front Bench have tabled some amendments relating to this matter. I will give an indication of the approach I would like to take on this, because it is an area that, as many Members know, is close to by heart. I completely agree that the purpose of planning is to promote sustainable development and that all plans and decisions should reflect that.
	New clause 2 captures where we should be, and I certainly undertake to give my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole most of what she seeks. As was always intended, we will bring out a draft national planning policy framework in July, which will have sustainable development at its heart. It will set out what we mean by sustainable development.

Henry Smith: Will that sustainability—sustainability can, of course, include many different strains—include community sustainability, such as providing for places of worship in local communities?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend anticipates the detail of the national policy planning framework, but at this stage all I would say on sustainable development is that the Government have no issue or disagreement with the classic definitions of it. The Brundtland definition, that development undertaken by this generation should not compromise the ability of future generations to live their lives, has stood the test of time and is very clear. Although I am foreshadowing the content of the
	framework, I want to give a clear signal to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members that we intend to follow that approach.

Joan Walley: This is a little like having the winding-up speeches before the debate has started, but, in anticipation that there might not be much time to set out the arguments for sustainable development, may I ask the Minister, given what he has said, whether he agrees that there is no substitute for writing sustainable development into legislation? Here we are, yet we do not have the details of the statement that will come out next week or later, so how can we ensure that sustainable development is written into the legislation? Is not that the most important aspect of this exercise?

Greg Clark: I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I hope she accepts that we have stated clearly that we are very comfortable with the classic definition of sustainable development, which will be prominent—in fact, it could not be more prominent—in the planning policy framework. She has no grounds for concern. Her Committee asked for an assurance that sustainable development would continue to be part of planning policy, and I take that point.

Alun Cairns: I wish to return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) made about places of worship. From my discussions with the Minister, I know that he has spoken warm words, but will he use this opportunity to place on the record his broad thinking about how places of worship can be accounted for in planning policy?

Greg Clark: I will resist the temptation to stray from the proposed changes before us. There are amendments that deal in particular with sustainable development, but I say in passing that the opportunity for communities to have and to promote places of worship is a reflection of their sense of community, and we would be wholly in opposition to the direction of the Bill if we had any intention of restricting that—quite the reverse. I do not think that my hon. Friend has any cause for concern.
	The previous Government promoted the five principles of sustainable development—living within environmental means, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly—in the sustainable strategy. I have no difficulty with that, and without going into too much detail I would expect those principles to be reflected in planning policy, where they always have been. That has been the place for them.
	The challenge from new clause 2—to require sustainable development to be put forward after a period—also carries an important virtue. The national planning policy framework will be subject to consultation, and it is quite right that we should give people the chance to see our definition—I have given a pretty broad steer as to what it will be—and to comment on it, rather than simply capturing something in the Bill now. I would be
	perfectly relaxed about doing so, but we should give people the chance to reflect on and to add to the definition.

Joan Walley: I hear what the Minister says, but would it not have been more appropriate if we had had that public debate alongside a White Paper, when sustainable development could have been looked at across the range of planning policy, not just as part of the framework to be published shortly? We could have looked at that first, but instead we are considering things in the dark.

Greg Clark: We are not quite in the dark. I hope that I have illuminated some of the dark, given what I have been able to say about the proposed contents of that White Paper. At the time of the Budget, I said that we would try to bring forward the definition a little earlier than the rest of the document, because I know that there is an interest in it. That will at least allow the other place to have the benefit of that thinking. If a greater token of good faith than my words at this Dispatch Box is required, it will appear quite shortly.
	I think hon. Members will be satisfied with our approach. I have long regarded the matter as a personal interest, having shadowed the energy and climate change brief in opposition, and there is nothing in our approach that does anything other than enhance matters. By clarifying, and taking away much of the undergrowth around, planning policy, it will make more resonant the principles that the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and my Liberal Democrat hon. Friends so rightly want to promote.
	Neighbourhood planning is another important addition to the Bill. I freely accept that the initial version of our clauses on this could have been improved, and I made commitments in Committee that we would reflect on improvements that could be made. The hon. Gentleman was particularly exercised, and indeed lyrical, about the opportunities to improve some of these provisions. He was dismayed that a neighbourhood forum in which these issues could be discussed was liable to take place in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck, thinking that too intimate a space for such a gathering and suggesting that it should be larger. We have reflected on the size of public houses across the country, and we think we need to enable more people to attend the forums.
	There is no Dog and Duck in Birmingham, as far as I was able to establish, which is a great disappointment. There was a Dog and Duck in Holloway Head, which is perhaps an area of the city that he knows, but sadly it was demolished some time after 1899. I have brought in this very appealing photograph of the pub, which I will give to the hon. Gentleman so that next time he is in his city he can research its antecedence. I have to say that it does not look the most salubrious of establishments, but then I do not know what his taste is in public houses, and he might regret its disappearance. He may also be dismayed to hear that another public house demolished in Birmingham in recent years was the House That Jack Built. I am sure that that is a source of regret to everyone in Birmingham, but perhaps it is an opportunity for him.

Greg Mulholland: While my right hon. Friend’s comments are amusing, does he understand the frustration of many of us, including members of the all-party save the pub group, that even
	after this Bill has been passed, it will remain perfectly possible for people to demolish free-standing pubs without the community having any right to have a say?

Greg Clark: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will say a few words about that in moment, and I hope to give him some comfort. He is absolutely right that one of the types of building that communities value most, whether in towns or villages, is their local pub. The frustration they feel in seeing some of these buildings demolished without the opportunity to do anything about it is a source of great concern. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who snaffled very sharpish the title of “Pubs Minister” when the portfolios were being handed out just after the general election, takes a particular interest in this and has been meeting representatives of the Campaign for Real Ale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his group.
	For Members of the House who were not in Committee, I should explain that we asked a series of questions about neighbourhood planning. First, is it right for neighbourhoods below the local authority level to be able to promote a vision of their future? We agreed that it was. This is easily available to areas that have parish councils or town councils: a standing democratic body is available, so it is easy to give it such powers. The next question is whether areas that do not have parish councils or town councils should be excluded from the ability to have a neighbourhood plan. There is an argument that they can apply for parish status, so we can provide a little bait to attract them towards doing that. Those on both Front Benches reflected on this and agreed that if some parts of the country decided that they did not want a standing parish council or town council but nevertheless wanted a neighbourhood plan, they should not be denied that.
	How can we bring together people in those places in an acceptable way to discuss these matters? In the Bill, that question turns on neighbourhood forums. We agreed to increase, through amendments, the minimum number of members of a neighbourhood forum from three—the number at which it was rather unfeasibly set—to 21. Landlords across the country can now count on at least 21 customers being in their snug to discuss neighbourhood plans rather than the minimum of three. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington argued strongly that we should increase the number. We have gone a little beyond the number that he suggested, and that is absolutely right. Government amendment 160 makes that clear.
	Amendment 160 also makes it clear that businesses should be involved. Clearly, any conception of a neighbourhood—certainly one that includes a high street—must reflect the fact that sometimes the people who have the interests of the community most at heart and who most epitomise the community are those who run businesses, because they are at the heart of the community. The fact that someone runs a business in a town but lives elsewhere should not preclude them from participating in the neighbourhood forum. We are happy to reflect that point, which again was urged by the hon. Gentleman, in Government amendments.

Annette Brooke: On amendment 160, will the Minister clarify what will be the balance between residents and businesses? The amendment could be read to mean that
	businesses alone could drive an agenda, which might not be compatible with what the residents want. I wonder whether the wording needs to be looked at again.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the Minister resumes, I clarify that he is not supposed to have his back continually to the Chair. He is supposed to address the whole House, not just the Members behind him. I hope that he will bear that in mind.

Greg Clark: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly intended no discourtesy to you or anyone else in the Chamber.
	We do not want to be too prescriptive in the rules for neighbourhood forums, because we want as many people to participate as possible. Nevertheless, we have specified the requirement in the examination that they should be open to all. Part of the test that the examiner will make is whether there are sufficient efforts to involve all sections of the community, including businesses and definitely residents. Various types of residents must also be included, because it is important that the whole community is represented. We have also clarified that councillors have a right to be involved in the neighbourhood forum, even if they do not reside in the ward that they represent, as is sometimes the case. I hope that Government amendments 161 and 162 cover the point made by the hon. Lady. If they need strengthening, we are happy to look at them again. I think that they make it clear that forums need to reflect the community and should not allow any narrow interests to dominate. That is one of the most important tests.
	Good points were made in Committee by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about cross-border arrangements. I recollect that they share a border in Blackheath. It is important that Blackheath is able to have a neighbourhood plan, and I very much hope that it will. Government amendments, in particular amendment 168, will make that possible, and will ensure that there will be only one plan for the area. It would be wrong for competitive plans for Blackheath to be promoted from the Lewisham side and the Greenwich side. It is important that they work together.

Bob Stewart: Do the provisions of the Bill apply to urban and metropolitan open spaces in the same way as they do to green belt development?

Greg Clark: If residents so desire, the provisions of a neighbourhood plan can designate spaces that residents want to keep as green space.
	The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that it should be possible for the examiners of plans to be planning inspectors or local authority officers. We perhaps erred too much on the side of reassuring residents that they had the right to promote their plan in the face of a recalcitrant local authority, and therefore excluded local authority officers and planning inspectors from being involved. We actually found, to our delight, that there is a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of many local authorities. Where a community and its local authority can happily work together, its officers should not be excluded from being involved.
	We have also addressed, in Government amendments 171 and 172, the need for the development of neighbourhood plans to be properly funded, recognising that the capacity of communities varies from place to place. Those amendments give the Secretary of State the power to arrange for payments to be made in support of neighbourhood planning, or for services such as training to be provided.

Nigel Mills: My right hon. Friend gives many words of encouragement to those of us who have tabled amendments. Does he have any such warm words for neighbourhoods that happen to be in a coal mining area and face the threat of open-cast mining applications? They would like to be able to include that matter in their neighbourhood plans.

Greg Clark: I was going to come on to my hon. Friend’s amendments, but since he raises the matter I will turn to them now. I will have to disappoint him. Neighbourhood plans are conceived as being about issues that just affect neighbourhoods. Although mineral extraction has consequences for particular neighbourhoods, it is clearly larger than a local matter. It has consequences for the wider authority and, in many cases, for national Government. It is not right to expect neighbourhood plans to govern mineral extraction, which goes beyond their scope.

Joan Walley: The issue of open-cast coal mining is critical, particularly in former coal mining areas. If there is going to be a presumption in favour of mineral extraction instead of that being balanced with environmental considerations, that suggests that there will be no commitment whatever to sustainable development at the heart of planning policy. If people cannot prevent open-cast coal mining, or have their view of it taken on board, that will send out a strong message to them that they will not have any say in future developments in their locality.

Greg Clark: No, the hon. Lady has got it wrong. We are talking about neighbourhood planning, but of course a whole panoply of other planning policy applies. There is absolutely no intention to remove the test of sustainability for mineral extraction or any other proposal, and that will be a matter for national policy. I do not underestimate in any way the importance of open-cast mining for the communities in which it takes place, but neighbourhood plans are not the mechanism to control it. I hope most hon. Members will see that.

Nigel Mills: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Greg Clark: I will make some progress, and then perhaps my hon. Friend can come in again. I know that a lot of Members want to speak.
	The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who made many helpful and constructive suggestions in Committee, has tabled two amendments. We will require the examiner of plans to take oral evidence if people want to submit it, but we will leave him or her to make the judgment about whether that is an attempt to delay the process or reflects a genuine appetite. Similarly, his amendment 12 is unnecessary because the Bill already
	allows prescribed steps to be taken in the examination of a neighbourhood plan, including the consideration of questions about participation. However, we will carefully consider whether an equalities impact assessment is appropriate.
	On heritage issues, our amendments correct a misdrafting that seemed to put in doubt the protection that conservation areas and listed buildings receive in the neighbourhood planning process. That was never our intention. Happily, working with the heritage groups, we have been able to agree a set of measures that address that problem.
	I wish to say a little about town centres, because I know that an amendment on the subject has been tabled. Policy on town centres has always been part of national planning policy, and I believe that is right. However, as I have done on the subject of sustainable development, I wish to signal clearly the importance of having robust policy, including the sequential test that is currently in planning policy statement 4. That will absolutely be in place, and it will be clear in the new national planning policy framework.
	The Association of Convenience Stores wants, to its credit, to keep this issue live and in the forefront of our minds. I am happy that it does so, but it need have no concerns. This Government’s attitude to town centres is absolutely clear: they are at the heart of our communities and nothing should be done that would disadvantage them or jeopardise that.
	Government new clause 15 deals with local finance matters, which has caused the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and his colleagues some concern in recent days. The proposal makes it clear that local finance matters that are relevant to planning considerations can be taken into account. It does not change the law in any way, and it is not some stealthy way in which to introduce a new basis for planning policy. Everyone knows that section 106 payments that are material in planning matters can be taken into consideration. The new clause reflects the fact that the introduction of the community infrastructure levy, and, potentially, other rebates to the local community, as I like to call them, can be used for planning purposes. It is important to be clear, lest there is any doubt on the part of local authorities, that such rebates, just like under section 106, can be made when they are relevant to planning considerations.
	Amendment 369, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), suggests that CIL should be used more widely for housing and other local infrastructure. It is important that planning committees, which are sometimes nervous and conservative about such matters, are reassured that the use of the CIL for appropriate planning purposes is perfectly legitimate and that it can be taken into account in planning decisions.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister implies that there is no change in policy as a result of new clause 15, but may I remind him that until three months ago, his Department’s stance was that financial matters could not be regarded as material considerations? His Department’s response to the consultation on the new homes bonus scheme affirmed that the new homes bonus cannot change the position that financial matters are not to be regarded as material considerations. New clause 15 changes that
	completely, and changes the presumption that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, which has been in the planning system for years. That is an extremely dangerous move, and I am astonished that the Minister has come to it only after 35 minutes of his speech. He has dealt with a lot of detail, but he has not addressed the fundamental threat that new clause 15 poses to the integrity of the planning system.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured that the measure is not a fundamental threat. Rather, it is an incidental measure for clarification. As he knows, section 106 payments have always been taken into account. There is no change in the policy whatever. He misquotes the response to the consultation on the new homes bonus, which is as valid today as it was when it was published. The response states that
	“the new Homes Bonus is not intended to encourage housing development which would otherwise be inappropriate in planning terms”
	and that local authorities
	“cannot take into account immaterial considerations.”
	Therefore, local finance considerations, like any other considerations, should be taken into account only if they are material to the application that is being considered. Let me give an example to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if it is perfectly appropriate for a payment made under a section 106 agreement to be taken into account by the planning authority, it would be perfectly reasonable for the CIL, for example, to be used to provide investment in a road scheme that accommodates a development. If a planning authority considers that to be material, it is perfectly reasonable to take it into account. The measure simply clarifies that if payments other than section 106 payments can be used for matters that are material to the application, it is legitimate to take them into account.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister will have to do better. He should consider whether he is being absolutely open with the House about the significance of the change. The existing presumption is that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, and that financial considerations are not material. He will know that section 106 agreements are negotiated only after planning consent has been granted. There should be no question about that. However, he is clearly muddying the waters—his language implies that—and by making a financial consideration a material consideration, he is undermining the planning system. I urge him to reconsider.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman is disappointed that this is not the cunning plot that he sensed it might be. It is a straightforward clarification, and he needs to accept that it is not what he thought it was. It is a simple and straightforward clarification brought about by the fact that it has been suggested in the press that some of these payments cannot be taken into account. It is important that councils understand that, where it is relevant to the planning matter in hand—but not otherwise—they can continue to take it into account. That is no different from the present situation, and it is important to clarify that.

Simon Hughes: I would like to press the Minister on his response to my amendment 369. I will make my point by way of example: the Shard, being built by London bridge, will
	attract community infrastructure levy section 106 money, and the local authority might want to renovate the local council or housing association estates nearby, or to build new social housing. Will he assure me that the Bill will make that possible?

Greg Clark: New clause 15 clarifies that it is reasonable for a planning authority to take such funds into account if they are to be used in connection with the planning application. On the use to which the funds are put, I know that in Committee my right hon. Friend and the Opposition Front-Bench team considered whether the provision could be drawn more widely to include affordable housing. It has not been possible to draw up a definitive amendment in time for Report, but I am sympathetic to those concerns, so we will introduce further suggestions in the Lords.

Heidi Alexander: Earlier in his remarks, the Minister was quick to quote the Royal Town Planning Institute on the progress that he would say has been made on the duty to co-operate, so could he tell me, in relation to new clause 15, why the RTPI writes:
	“The Government’s new amendment to make financial considerations a material consideration is deeply flawed and potentially very damaging to proper planning and contradicts assurances given by ministers just 12 weeks ago”?
	What does he have to say to the RTPI?

Greg Clark: I have given clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that this is not what the RTPI perhaps suspected or what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich clearly suspected: that this was some grand plan to—as he put it—buy and sell planning permission. That is not the case. There is no change in the dispensation.

Clive Betts: rose —

Greg Clark: I give way to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

Clive Betts: I want to get down to practicalities. Given that these matters are now material considerations, is it not the case that when an application comes before a local planning authority, the officer of that authority will have a responsibility to explain in their recommendations precisely what financial considerations there are and how much will be gained by the authority and the community from granting the application? That is completely different from any present requirement on any planning officer to explain any financial matters before the planning committee makes a decision on an application.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the Minister replies, I want to say that this is a very important point, and I am allowing the interventions to run longer than normal because of its complexity. Can we bear it in mind, however, that we still have a lot of business to get through?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. It is not required that the planning application should be determined on the basis of the financial flow. It is relevant only if it relates to the planning matter before the authority. For example, if
	the community infrastructure levy is to be used to pay for an access road, it is perfectly reasonable—this is clarified in the new clause—for that to be taken into account by the local authority.
	I want to make some progress, because I have spoken for 45 minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has tabled a new clause—new clause 4—that would introduce what he describes as a limited right of appeal for third parties against planning applications, just as he did in Committee. Let me make a few points about that. In the first place, I fear that the drafting of new clause 4 is technically defective. The drafting of proposed new section 78(2B)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would allow any overview and scrutiny committee anywhere in the country to appeal against planning permission granted by a wholly different authority. Clearly it is not his intention that his planning committee in Cornwall should appeal against a decision in Tunbridge Wells, so whatever happens, he needs to take that into account.
	The second point is that new clause 4 does not address—as it would need to if it were accepted—the crucial point of what happens in the meantime if planning permission is granted by a local council. Is that permission to be held in abeyance, awaiting a possible appeal, or can planning permission be implemented in the meantime? If a development goes ahead and there is a successful appeal, would that development need to be demolished? If work is started on a development that needs to be interrupted, is anyone liable for compensation if the permission is overturned on appeal? There are therefore a few technical deficiencies with new clause 4 that would need to be considered.

Stephen Gilbert: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the technical deficiencies in new clause 4 to me, and particularly for doing so at 9 o’clock this evening. However, aside from the technical deficiencies, what is the Government’s view of the principle? I can work on the robustness of the new clause if the Government can give me their view in principle.

Greg Clark: I will explain, although I will shortly draw my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that other Members want to speak. As my hon. Friend and all other members of the Committee know, my view is that we should move away from a system of planning by development control, where recourse is made to the Planning Inspectorate rather than local decision makers, which is how the future of our communities has been developed. I want fewer appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and more decided locally. Doing that means plan-making becoming a much more prominent part of the process. Neighbourhood plans and pre-application scrutiny—and, incidentally, neighbourhood plans becoming part of the development plan, even if the local authority disapproves —along with the abolition of regional imposition and the prevention of the inspector from simply rewriting plans are all geared towards making the plan prominent and, indeed, sovereign. When we are dealing with the legitimate concerns of communities that feel that
	developments that they do not want have been imposed on them, my concern is to strengthen their ability to control the process by participating in plan-making.

George Hollingbery: rose —

Philip Davies: rose —

Nicky Morgan: rose —

Greg Clark: I will continue to make a bit of progress, then I will certainly give way to my hon. Friends.
	Taking away some of those appeals for determination by an undemocratic body, rather than by local authorities on the basis of a plan, is the wrong thing to do, and would also elevate the status of planning officers above members. Such an approach would essentially say to planning committees that they should either agree with their planning officers or risk facing an appeal. That is the wrong approach. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay will shortly see evidence in the national planning policy framework of my absolute intention to make plans sovereign, so that it is not possible simply to set aside democratically agreed local plans in response to particular pressures.
	There is also a case for looking at the fact that the costs of losing appeals can sometimes hang over local authorities. Sometimes the threat of losing an appeal dissuades a local authority from turning down an application that it might want to turn down. We should look at that, to ensure that it will be possible for local authorities robustly to stick to their local plans.

Philip Davies: My right hon. Friend will remember visiting my constituency to meet local residents who were fighting against unwanted developments in Micklethwaite and Menston. The logic of what he is saying seems to be that the appeal process should be evened up to deprive the developer of the opportunity to take their plans to appeal. Is that what he is proposing? One way or another, the plans should be equal between the developer and the local residents. On the basis of what he has just said, can he clarify whether he is going to stop developers having the right to appeal?

Greg Clark: I know that my hon. Friend withdrew an amendment proposing to deprive developers or property owners of their right to appeal. He will know, as a robust free-marketeer, that when planning consent was nationalised, it took away people’s opportunity to do what they wanted with their property, and that that became subject to the right of appeal. I think that that is a reasonable safeguard. I want to make the local plan clear and sovereign, so that it becomes the determinant of planning applications, so that they do not need to go to appeal.

George Hollingbery: In my little local town of Bishop’s Waltham, a supermarket is being built outside the local plan. Is the Minister saying that the sovereignty of local plans will be such that there will be no out-of-plan developments at all, even for supermarkets in small market towns?

Greg Clark: The combination of neighbourhood plans and local plans in the new system will be much more robust than at present. My hon. Friend can reasonably expect that they will govern the decisions that are taken.
	Too often at the moment, an appearance before the planning committee is merely the first step on the way to an appeal, and that is the wrong way to do planning.
	I want briefly to refer to the amendments on betting shops tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I know from our conversations that he is very concerned about the proliferation of betting shops in his community and elsewhere. We announced in the Budget a review of how use class orders, relating to a change in use, are handled in the planning system. I will ensure that a specific part of that review deals with the very real issue in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and we will look at what can be done to make progress in that regard.

Joan Ruddock: When the Minister undertakes that review and looks into the issue, will he consider the fact that there are clusters of betting shops in many high streets, including Deptford high street in my constituency, and that they are crowding out regeneration and diversity of retail? This proliferation of betting shops is blighting many areas. He needs to take into account not only changes of use but the fact that there are far too many instances of this single type of operation being clustered in one street, which I am sorry to say attracts a lot of antisocial behaviour.

Greg Clark: I understand the right hon. Lady’s point. This is something that is reflected across the country. One aspect of neighbourhood planning will look at the character of high streets, in particular, to ensure a proper diversity of uses.

David Lammy: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Clark: I will not give way, because I want to conclude my remarks. We have only 50 minutes left, and a lot of Members wish to speak.
	I hope that I have been able to cover the great majority of the new clauses and amendments in this group. I know that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will want to have his say, as well as Back Benchers. These measures represent a significant development in our planning procedures. They will correct some long-standing flaws, which have resulted in people not having an opportunity to have their say in plan making from the beginning. They will give neighbourhoods the opportunity to have their vision of the community promoted as part of the local development plan. I will conclude my remarks now, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Jack Dromey: I will speak to Opposition amendments 293 to 299, amendment 301 and new clauses 29 and 32; and I shall deal with some Government amendments.
	On health, the Government gave not an inch in Committee, got it badly wrong and then paused for thought. On localism, the Government admitted in Committee that they had got it badly wrong. They committed to making changes and are now bringing forward 234 new clauses and amendments—more than the entirety of provisions in the original Bill.
	There are some moves in the right direction. The Government have, for example, accepted our amendment
	to protect our national heritage and our great historic buildings, which was warmly welcomed by English Heritage. This Bill, however, like the Health and Social Care Bill, remains a bad Bill.
	The Government have moved on the duty to co-operate, admitting that the original proposals did not go far enough. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), a decent man with an open mind, acknowledged to the Committee that the Government needed to strengthen the duty to co-operate and, in his words,
	“to make it bite and to make it more encompassing than it is.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 15 February 2011; c. 599.]
	The progress made, however, is extremely limited. It is clear that the Secretary of State, a man with a closed mind, sat on his Ministers—a fate too awful to contemplate. Since the Committee stage we have had additional changes to digest emerging from the Budget and those 234 new clauses and amendments. I am afraid to say that the sum total of the changes proposed is confusion, chaos and nothing short of a car crash.
	Since taking power, the Government have moved at breakneck speed to demolish the planning system and to rebuild it within a matter of months. The demolition is nearly complete, with the end of sensible regional strategic planning, including the folly of the abolition of the regional development agencies and their replacement with local economic partnerships with no powers and no money—all because the Secretary of State gets out the clove of garlic and the cross at the very mention of “regional”.
	As the dust settles, has it all been worth it? How does the Minister view the planning landscape? Are we about to see a new streamlined planning process delivering housing, economic growth, action on climate change and the environment, and transport and infrastructure while also empowering people? Are we going to see that rise from the ashes?

James Morris: rose —

Jack Dromey: With respect, I took many interventions in Committee, but now that the Minister has taken the best part of an hour, I am determined to get through my remarks so that we can hear the maximum number of contributions from Back Benchers on both sides.
	Ending up in a pickle, the Government have produced a system that is desperately unfit for purpose. It is important to remember the purpose of planning. Good planning is a vital tool for delivering the necessary development, while also delivering on sustainable development. Planning should integrate the needs of the economy with environmental and social goals to create sustainable communities and retain and enhance our cultural, historic and landscape assets.
	We support any sensible reform. We accept that the system the Government inherited was, like any planning system, capable of improvement. We agree that increased local input by local people and local communities for the future of their areas and their built environment is absolutely vital to the success of any planning system. The reformed planning system, however, must be able
	to meet key tests and objectives. The system must be able to meet our growing housing need and in the right areas.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jack Dromey: I intend to finish my speech soon, for reasons that I have already given. In a debate lasting less than two hours, a Minister spoke for the best part of an hour. I want to allow time for the maximum number of contributions to be made by Back Benchers.
	The Government propose to introduce a regressive system that will reallocate moneys away from low-demand areas, and will undermine sustainable development by encouraging growth on the most developable and profitable rather than the most sustainable sites. The planning system must deliver sustainable development, but instead of including a definition of sustainable development in the Bill, the Government indicated in the Budget that they intended a profound shift away from sustainable development as the objective of planning towards a market free-for-all.
	An effective planning system should contribute to the delivery of our future needs, and that includes helping us to meet our carbon commitments in the fight against climate change. The Government, however, have promoted a toothless duty to co-operate, which will not contribute one iota to the mitigation of climate change. A truly effective planning system should also be responsive to local needs, demands and aspirations, but the Government’s proposals in relation to neighbourhood planning are half-baked and a bureaucratic nightmare. They are also a sham.
	Like other parts of the Bill, the localism agenda with regard to planning is wholly undermined by the Government’s attempt to face in two directions at once. On one hand we have the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government trumpeting the devolving of power to local people; on the other hand we have the Chancellor, who wants to make it easier for developers to bypass the planning system altogether. I can only assume that in the battle between the Treasury and the DCLG, the Treasury has won the day. How else can we explain the introduction of new clause 15, which enables financial benefits such as the new homes bonus to be a material consideration in the determining of planning applications?
	Ministers and others on the Government Benches should be clear about what they are voting for today. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association all condemn the proposals. The CPRE has said:
	“We believe that this amendment would fundamentally distort the planning system by encouraging local authorities to base decisions on the financial implications rather than the spatial merits of the proposed development. It could also undermine the plan-led system and result in the spread of developments that go against the views of local people.”
	That view is echoed across the planning community, and will soon be heard in Members’ surgeries up and down the country.
	The new clause undermines the fundamental principle that planning decisions should be made in the long-term public interest, taking account of land use consequences and of what local people actually want, rather than being based on financial rewards for the decision-maker. It stands on its head what the Government said in the new homes bonus design document, referred to earlier, which was released on 17 February. It also directly contradicts a written statement released on the same day by the Minister for Housing and Local Government who said:
	“The New Homes Bonus also sits alongside the existing framework for making planning decisions. Responsibility will remain with local authorities to work within this framework to continue to ensure that development is suitable and sustainable by meeting local needs and national planning policy.”
	The new clause represents a fundamental conflict of interests within planning. We must therefore ask why the proposal was not considered earlier. Could it be because since 17 February Ministers have been in receipt of a legal opinion saying that the proposed new homes bonus scheme would introduce an unlawful element into the planning decision-making process, and that any planning permission granted on the basis that the scheme, or a grant under it, is a material consideration would stand a good chance of being quashed in a claim for judicial review? Faced with the news that their cornerstone housing policy was doomed, Ministers have decided to disregard the public interest and have rigged the planning system instead. Their cries of “Localism” are sounding hollower by the minute. This new clause was not considered in Committee, and this profound change to the way in which planning works has been introduced with no consultation, dialogue or debate. We will vote against it.
	What of the Government’s amended duty to co-operate? Their most significant proposed change is to use the local development framework soundness test as a sanction to ensure that co-operation takes place. That sounds reasonable, except that it is a retrospective test. Unlike our amendments, the Government’s amendments do not specify what is meant by co-operation. It will be extremely difficult for any inspector to assess definitively whether there has been adequate co-operation. It could take several years to judge whether or not co-operation has been successful, a period we can ill afford given the pressing need to meet housing needs, to modernise our infrastructure and to respond to the increasing scientific evidence of climate change. In short, the Government’s proposed duty to co-operate remains essentially voluntary, does not specify a unified product in terms of plan or strategy, does not specify the issues to be dealt with, and does not create an effective boundary to shape the extent of co-operation. It is certainly true that the proposal in general is a step in the right direction, but this measure simply will not work.
	On the other hand, our measures go some way towards establishing the planning system the country needs. The duty we propose places sustainable development as a core objective of this co-operation, specifies the scope of the co-operation required, specifies a minimum number of issues to be the subject of co-operation including climate, housing, biodiversity and transport, and is based on a spatial area and not neighbouring authorities only, because that does not work for the most strategic planning issues. Our proposed duty also places a statutory requirement on local authorities to prepare a joint strategy that addresses a number of specified strategic
	issues. This duty will not repair the damage the Government are intent on inflicting on the planning system, but it may salvage something from the wreckage.
	What in terms of sustainable development can we retrieve from the wreckage? At a time when the country is facing unprecedented challenges in economic recovery, climate change and increased urbanisation, the need for us to achieve sustainable development and to address these issues effectively has never been greater. However, the abolition of regional spatial strategies has removed many of the mechanisms that have provided an impetus for action towards achieving sustainable development and helping to monitor progress.
	Looking to the future, achieving sustainable development must be at the heart of the planning system and the Bill, and we therefore welcome new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), which does exactly that: it puts sustainable development at the heart of the Bill. It is also absolutely vital that the adoption of short-term measures to drive economic growth and the abolition of important Government advisers such as the Sustainable Development Commission do not lead us into making decisions that are unsuitable for the country in the long term. Somewhere in the planning system consideration must be given to the how actions we take now will have an impact on future generations. In short, the Government need to be clear about the purpose of planning sustainable development. The issue is even more imperative given that the Government’s intention under new clause 15, which would give financial payments a privileged status—first among equals—as no other issue, such as housing or climate change, is specifically identified in the primary legislation as material. In the light of that, there is no justification for not specifying sustainable development in the Bill.
	The proposed duty to consider climate change applies only to the preparation of local development frameworks and not to neighbourhood planning. Our proposals on climate change would ensure that, alongside our approach to strategic planning and the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North to sustainable development, the mitigation of climate change would be at the heart of the local plan-making process.
	The new provisions in the Bill on neighbourhood planning have been drafted to avoid the climate change duty. Do the Government seriously expect the carbon emissions for each neighbourhood forum and each local development plan magically to add up to our national target on climate change?
	However, the climate change issues are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Bill’s clauses on neighbourhood planning. The Government have proposed a series of amendments to the neighbourhood planning process arising out of our debates in Committee. As on the duty to co-operate, the limited progress is welcome. The Government have agreed to increase the number of people needed to initiate a forum from three to 21, so there is no longer the prospect of three men or three women in the Dog and Duck constituting themselves as a neighbourhood forum. On our other proposals to ensure democratic accountability no concessions have been made. The Government clearly see no need to ensure that such forums are accountable, and so 35% of the country will be covered by democratic bodies—parish councils, which, at their best, are admirable institutions—
	while the remaining 65% will be represented by forums with no democratic legitimacy and no accountability. We want communities to have a greater say in planning and to have a say over their local area, but forums should be democratically accountable and involve at least one local councillor. It is simply wrong to downgrade democracy.
	We also want to give local communities a greater say over the future of their local high street. I see today that, as a result of Labour’s amendments in Committee, Mary Portas, who is described as a “TV retail guru”, is to carry out a Government-backed review aimed at halting the “decline” of the high street in England. Retail summits are fine, but they are not an alternative to practical action. The Government should therefore back the concrete proposals for change that we have put before the House today.
	In Committee, we moved amendments to enshrine the “town centre first” policy in primary legislation. We welcomed the all-party consensus that there clearly was on the importance of this issue and the Government’s commitment to placing the “town centre first” policy at the heart of the national planning policy framework. Although that was a step in the right direction, we need to do more to put the heart back into Britain’s high streets. New clause 29 would require a local planning authority to include a retail diversity scheme within its local development framework. Crucially, the scheme would be developed through a consultation process with the local community, with the voices of local people and of local retailers heard. The new clause establishes a vital goal: the promotion of retail diversity, striking the right balance between large and small businesses and, in particular, focusing on establishing and growing small and specialist retail businesses.
	Healthy and diverse high streets are the heart of local communities. High streets and neighbourhood shopping parades are the engine room of thriving communities and local economies. Hon. Members will be all too aware that our high streets have suffered in the downturn. The new clause is not anti-supermarket but we must ensure that the supermarkets do not succeed at the expense of the high street. We must harness their power to better the community as a whole.
	In short, Labour wants to give communities a real say in the future of their high streets and the power to make the changes that we want. I know that Ministers will tell the House that our proposal to put the heart back in the high street is not necessary since measures on the “town centre first” policy will be included in the long-awaited national planning policy framework, a document that has now attained near mythical status—nay, that of the holy grail. All that information is supposed to be contained within the document yet, like the holy grail, no one has seen it. I would submit that this matter—the future of our high street—is so important that it warrants specific legislation. The new clause ensures that communities and not central Government decide how their retail provision should change and grow to meet their needs.
	The Government’s planning Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, has said that he wants to give communities real power over their local areas and will look to strengthen
	the role of our high streets in our towns and cities. If the Government mean what they say, they should accept our changes to the Localism Bill and give local people a real say over their high street.
	On retail diversity, sustainable development, the issues incorporated in our duty to co-operate and many of the other issues raised today, I expect the Minister might tell us, “Don’t worry, it’ll be in the national planning policy framework.” Frankly, however, I would not be surprised if Ministers told us next that we could look forward to reading about the meaning of life in the NPPF. The NPPF has been trailed by the Government as a document that will streamline national planning policy guidance, but at every turn the Government have committed that something additional will be in the NPPF. The NPPF is clearly a document of vital importance to the proposed planning changes, but do we have a copy of it to read in draft alongside the Bill? No.
	There is considerable uncertainty about what the NPPF will be, what it will look like, its status within the planning system and the process for its development and adoption. Promises from the Government that it will all be okay when the NPPF is published simply will not wash. It is wrong that such a major document, so relevant to the radical changes in the Bill, has not been published alongside it.
	In conclusion, we have in front of us today a blueprint for a planning system that will deliver nothing but chaos. It is full of contradictions in its objectives and overloaded with inconsistencies in the policies designed to deliver those same confused objectives. The Government claim that the Bill will deliver balanced economic growth and the housing we need, safeguard the environment and increase local engagement in planning. In reality, it dismantles the strategic planning system and the means to meet our housing need, deliver sustainable economic growth, meet our energy needs and capacity, safeguard our environment and mitigate climate change. While Ministers claim the Bill delivers localism, the sum total of their proposals are neighbourhood forums that will be thoroughly opaque, undemocratic and unaccountable. Any hopes that the Government mean what they say about empowering communities, delivering on sustainable development or mitigating climate change are utterly discredited by their proposal to rig the planning system to make their regressive new homes bonus deliver housing in the wrong areas. I hope therefore that Government Members will support our amendment to strengthen strategic planning and give communities a real say on their local high street, and that they will vote against the Government’s new clause 15, which will fatally undermine our country’s planning system.

Annette Brooke: I shall be very brief. I share concerns about Government new clause 15 even after the Minister’s assurances. If bringing financial considerations into the Bill is not going to make any difference, why include the measure? I am afraid that I have not got my head around that and I am very concerned that we do not have time to discuss this in depth and understand the impact of the change.
	New clause 2, which is tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, was inspired by a report of the Environmental Audit Committee and we have tried to pick up on its main points. I sincerely believe that we need a definition of sustainable development in the
	context of the Bill and I share some of the concerns about how we can get the right balance between the pursuit of economic growth and making sure that economic growth is sustainable. Wherever that definition falls, it has to be in such a form that it can be developed downwards and interpreted by local communities, but also, in a sense, developed upwards within the national planning policy framework. That is quite a challenge. I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to accept what is in the new clause, but I hope that, as he is reflecting, he will also take on board some of the points that were made within the context of new clause 6.
	On new clause 4, I welcome the Minister’s comments about strengthening the basis of local plans. Throughout my time as chairman of planning it was very frustrating when there were attempts to override the local plan and one felt that one had to give in under the threat of costs. At the back of my mind, I still think that there ought to be a community right of appeal as a backstop, perhaps on much more limited terms than in the new clause. Obviously, there is still time to reflect on that.
	I remain concerned about the wording of Government amendment 160 and I hope that will be looked at.

David Lammy: Given what the Minister has said, I rise to speak to my new clauses 30 and 31. It cannot be right that there are nine betting shops on one stretch of high street in Green Lanes or that there are 10 betting shops within 300 metres of Ealing Broadway station. It cannot be right that there are 60 gambling establishments within just 300 metres of the pagoda in Chinatown. The gambling industry and bookmakers in particular are flouting the gambling rules; they are opening up right across London and it is unacceptable. That is not to say that we want to condemn gambling—I like to gamble—but it is to say that when it comes to diversity on the high street, local communities and local authorities should have the planning powers to say, “Enough is enough,” “No, thank you,” and “No more.” That is why I think, and I am supported by London councils on this, that betting shops should be in a sui generis class of their own in the same way as casinos and amusement arcades.
	I shall force new clause 31 to a vote because I am not satisfied that the Minister is not just kicking this issue into the long grass. There has been a campaign by London Citizens and there is a continuing campaign by faith communities on the issue. Right across London, people are sick to death of seeing one betting shop after another.
	It is a great shame that the old Hackney town hall has been turned into a Coral bookmakers. It is unacceptable that countless pubs across the country are being turned into bookmakers. That is the case for every single class use—A2, which is meant to be for building societies and banks, drinking establishments under A4, as has been mentioned, take-aways under A5, and restaurants and cafes under A3. That is why we need action, and why I had hoped the Minister would say that he accepted the amendment, as leaders of councils across London have requested. It is unacceptable to kick the matter into the long grass. I urge the Minister to think again.

Simon Kirby: I shall speak briefly to new clause 5, which stands in my name. The new clause is designed to allow the Secretary of State to change, by order, any piece of planning legislation
	that is causing any planning authority problems in carrying out its statutory duties or where a particular piece of planning legislation is causing local public controversy. I appreciate that this is an extensive power for the Secretary of State, but I also propose, as part of the same amendment, a strong safeguard in that a variation in the law may be made only if it has been subject to a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
	The need for such a power is evidenced by an issue in my constituency. Brighton Marina was built in the 1970s following the lengthy passage of the Brighton Marina Act 1968. The marina is located in an undercliff location on land that was reclaimed from the sea. From the coast road anyone looking at the marina can gaze downwards to see the boats, shops, restaurants, businesses and low-rise accommodation located there. For many years the 1968 Act has been taken to mean that any development above cliff height would be only for ancillary works, such as lamp posts and fencing.
	However, in recent years, that has been challenged by proposals for housing development that would rise well above the cliff height. One such scheme was agreed by Brighton and Hove city council but not acted on, and one was turned down by the council. That refusal was sustained last year by my right hon. Friend on appeal, for which I am grateful. Both these developments were highly controversial and there was a clear difference of opinion between residents and the planning authority as to the intention of the 1968 Act. If my amendment to the Bill had been in place, that difference of opinion would not have occurred, because the legislation would have been crystal clear. Instead, we have had years of wrangling and uncertainty and still have no clear view of the meaning of the 1968 Act even now.
	The thrust of the coalition Government’s policy is to simplify, eliminate and clarify the rules, regulations and legislation faced daily by the public and businesses. My new clause would add significantly to the practical implementation of that policy, and I commend it to the House.

Joan Ruddock: I shall speak to new clauses 30 and 31, with reference to Deptford high street in my constituency. It is one of the oldest and most historic in the country. Although the area is one of multiple deprivation, it has a diverse and vibrant community, a good retail offer and a thriving local market. In recent years we have seen a proliferation of betting shops, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who tabled the new clauses, described from his own constituency experience.
	The problem in Deptford started with Coral, which took over a shop that had been used as an art gallery and café, and moved away only because it was so hugely successful that it needed bigger premises. There followed a succession of developments that took many of our most historic buildings and iconic pubs, such as the John Evelyn and the Deptford Arms.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Bill does not go far enough in protecting assets that are of community value from being transferred to the private sector and that this is something that the Government should have allowed time for us to debate properly tonight?

Joan Ruddock: I very much agree.
	There have been the changes of use on Deptford high street that I have described, but at the same time there has been a determination to improve it, and after years of battling we secured the funds, with the co-operation of a Labour Government, for a new station at Deptford and we expected new development to follow. However, who will want to live where they will look out on such a high street? As local campaigner Sue Lawes has described, at No. 14 we have Better Betting, at Nos. 34 to 40 we have William Hill, at No. 44 we have The Money Shop, for payday loans, at Nos. 49 to 50 we have Ladbrokes, at No. 55 we have Paddy Power, at No. 60 we have Fish Brothers pawnbrokers, at No. 70 we have Coral and at No. 72 we have H&T pawnbrokers. The final straw is Betfred’s application to take over the old Halifax building. There the change of use would have been required because it was restricted specifically to use by a building society.
	The council has of course turned down that application and said, quite reasonably, that there are already far too many betting shops in the area and that it is unnecessary. They say that within the designated core shopping frontage the number of betting shops has reached
	“beyond an acceptable level, detracting from the range of retail services available within the defined District Town Centre”.
	Betfred has of course appealed. We await the result of that appeal with interest.
	I put it to the Minister that it cannot be acceptable that, in an area of great deprivation but great spirit, local residents, 700 of whom have signed a petition, have no say in what is done there. I suggest not only that local people must have a say, but that others need to be protected from this kind of proliferation. Surely this is a community that can ill afford to spend what little money it has in betting shops on this scale. I am not opposed to betting; none of us is. It is the cluster effect and the proliferation that must be dealt with, and I very much hope that he will see that that is done.

Philip Davies: I am surprised at the lack of faith that the right hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have in their own constituents, because betting shops of course go where there is a demand for them. If there was no demand for them on the high streets in Lewisham and Tottenham, presumably some of them would close down.

David Lammy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: No, because I do not have enough time.
	The fact that these betting shops have not closed down indicates that the right hon. Member’s constituents want to use them, which makes them viable. I commend the right hon. Gentleman in particular for leading with his chin on this issue, because of course it was the Gambling Act 2005 that removed the unstipulated demand test. He was not only a member of the Government at the time, but in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which introduced the Act which he now finds so offensive. I hope that the Minister will resist the siren voices from the Opposition Benches calling on him to do something about the general principle of supply and demand, which I hope he, as a staunch supporter of the free market, will stick to.
	I want to touch on new clause 7, which I have tabled, which relates to casinos. It would give all 600 local authorities fairly and equally the power to decide whether to allow the licensing of casino premises in their areas. The location of casinos was determined by legislation back in 1972, which identified 53 permitted areas on the basis of population data as it stood at the time and added a number of seaside towns. That information is now woefully outdated and denies many local authorities access to investment and jobs and unfairly constrains and confines legitimate and licensed businesses. Despite the emergence of new towns and new centres of population, there have been no changes at all to those permitted areas in almost 40 years. A casino licensed in an existing permitted area can move premises only within the same permitted area in which it was licensed; it may not even transfer to another permitted area, even if a local authority wants it. Those anachronistic and ridiculous constraints have enabled casinos, ironically given our previous discussion, to be crowded into outdated permitted areas. Through my new clause I do not seek to allow any more casinos in this country, even though I probably would not object to that in principle; the same limit would apply to casinos throughout the country. All my new clause would mean was that casinos were able to apply to be outside the existing 53 permitted areas, if local authorities wanted them. We would be giving every local authority the chance to have a casino in their area, if they want it, rather than sticking to outdated rules from more than 40 years ago.

Joan Walley: I will be brief, because there were many references to sustainable development not only in the Minister’s introductory comments, but in the speech that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made.
	The Minister made what was effectively a winding-up speech at the outset, and I rather suspect that the whole debate about sustainable development will be discussed further in the other place, so I want to send the most powerful message that I can, stating that when that debate takes place we should not just be satisfied with legislation that relates to guidance or with a new framework policy document that might come out in the near future; we should make sure that Parliament defines sustainable development and sets it out clearly in relation to this Bill, in this Bill.
	My amendment is supported not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Communities and Local Government Committee, but by Friends of the Earth, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Wildlife and Countryside League, the Woodland Trust, WWF UK and many more.
	I simply say this by way of a message to the other place. The previous Parliament proposed that the Procedure Committee should allow the recommendations of Select Committees, when there has been a unanimous decision and report, to become material considerations as legislation goes through this place. Were that the case now, I have no doubt that it would have brought forward an opportunity to consider precisely what the Environmental Audit Committee’s short, sharp inquiry, which is tagged with
	today’s business, recommended—namely, that there should be a definition of sustainable development to allow for future progress, and that the Localism Bill should include a statutory duty to apply the principles of sustainability to the planning system and other functions of local government, and set out that definition.
	We have not got that far with our modernisation of parliamentary procedure, but in the interim I genuinely hope that those valid concerns will be taken into account, so that we have not a whitewash but a means of balancing what many Opposition Members think, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, are now going to be financial considerations, giving developers free rein to do what they like, with the real principles of sustainable development.

Simon Hughes: I will be literally a minute, because many colleagues wish to speak. This is not quite the way I would have chosen to spend my birthday evening, but there we go.
	I want to ensure that the Minister has not ignored my amendments 371, 372 and 370. The first two would require planning authorities to be more effective in their consultation on a planning application, and I suggest that within a quarter of a mile radius of the application site is a much more precise definition than just “the vicinity”.
	I welcome the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and the fact that the arrangements will be taken back into a democratically accountable planning system. In the case of a big scheme such as the one that we may have coming down the track in Southwark for the great Thames sewerage main, I hope that we can still allow local authorities the ability to make the planning decision where there is a large structure in a borough on a particular site that is a unique part of the development. Of course there must be a bigger authority taking a strategic national decision, but where there is a local site of significance, the local authority should have a supplementary power to make that decision too. I hope that at some stage I will get positive noises from the Minister and that we might get appropriate changes at the other end of the building.

Nicholas Dakin: I rise to speak to my amendments 11 and 12, which are to do with the right to be heard and equalities. It is very important that individuals and groups have the right to be heard in neighbourhood planning. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I think he was saying that there would be a presumption in favour of this, but I would be keen to see what criteria people will be using to guard against that happening for a mischievous purpose, or whatever. If the Minister is saying that there is a presumption in favour of oral representation where people want to take that option, that is very important.
	On equalities, it is important, under the Equalities Act 2010, to demonstrate that certain people are under-represented in the decision-making process. In 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its first triennial review “How fair is Britain?”, which identified the decline in opportunities for individuals to contribute to decisions that affect their lives as a major risk factor in moving towards a fairer society. I think the Minister said that there is no need for concern about
	this but that he will consider it further and ensure that equalities legislation is operable in these terms. If that is the case, I welcome it.

Greg Mulholland: I will try to keep my comments brief; realistically, with four minutes to go, I probably cannot keep them any briefer. I know the age of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but I will not reveal it at this stage and just wish him a happy birthday.
	I support a levelling of the planning process either by a third-party right of appeal or by the abolition of a developer’s right of appeal. Had the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend been one that would work, I would certainly have supported it. I have just been involved in a planning process in Adel in Leeds, where we had an absolutely farcical situation in which David Wilson Homes, the developer, withdrew its scheme halfway through an appeal, but the system still allowed it to reapply for outline planning permission, which it then got. That was an absolute farce—an entirely shoddy, underhand and anti-localist way of doing things. I want to bring that to Ministers’ attention.
	On pubs, there has been a lot of talk about the Duck and Drake—the many Duck and Drakes in the country. There is no finer place to hold a neighbourhood forum than in a pub. However, in terms of what this Bill does to strengthen communities’ hands in protecting pubs, the most appropriate pub name would probably be the Hot Air Balloon. As I have said to Ministers before, I am afraid that there is very little in the Bill, as it stands, to give communities a greater say. At the moment, although there have been changes, it remains perfectly legal to demolish a free-standing pub without planning permission. The Bill does nothing to change the fact that a pub can become a restaurant, a café, a betting shop or a payday loans shop without communities having any say whatsoever. If the Bill is to do anything to strengthen the hands of local communities, there are simple ways of doing that that do not prevent pubs from being developed when they are genuinely unviable.
	On behalf of the all-party save the pub group, I have put this question to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is the community pubs Minister, but I have not had an answer: do the Government, who claim to be a pro-pub Government, think it is right that profitable pubs that are wanted by their communities are being closed every single day? If the Government do not believe that that is right—I do not believe that any hon. Member in this House believes that it is—they must do something about it. I regret to say that at this stage, there is nothing in the Localism Bill that does that. I know that we will carry on this discussion, and I look forward to doing that and taking up the Minister’s offer of a meeting. However, at the moment, it is simply not good enough. If he, the ministerial team and the Government believe in pubs and in genuine localism, they must do more in this Bill. Otherwise, it will be a real opportunity wasted.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:

Ayes 297, Noes 232.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New clause 15 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	The Speaker  then put forthwith the Questions  necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 29
	 — 
	Retail diversity scheme

‘(1) In Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 after section 15 insert—
	15A (1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a scheme to be known as their retail diversity scheme.
	(2) The retail diversity scheme must form part of the Local Development Scheme within two years of the Local Development Scheme being published or within two years of this Act being passed, whichever is later.
	(3) The scheme must—
	(a) define a network and hierarchy of retail centres in the local authority area,
	(b) assess the need for development in retail centres,
	(c) identify sites for development based on the sequential approach, and
	(d) promote retail diversity.
	(4) In this section—
	(a) ‘retail diversity’ means a mix of retail provision that meets the requirements of the local catchment area in terms of range and quality of comparison and convenience retail businesses;
	(b) ‘sequential approach’ means that local planning authorities must identify sites that are suitable, available and viable for development in the following order—
	(i) locations in appropriate existing centres;
	(ii) edge of centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected to existing retail centres;
	(iii) out of centre sites with preference given to sites well served by a choice of transport and are closest to an existing centre.
	(5) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the scheme as he thinks appropriate.
	(6) Such a direction must contain the Secretary of State’s reasons for giving it.
	(7) The local planning authority must consult with the local community in developing the scheme.
	(8) The local community as defined under subsection (7) must include—
	(a) a parish council or parish councils authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
	(b) a ‘qualifying body’ authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
	(c) any other local person at the discretion of the local planning authority.
	(9) Where a retail planning application is submitted and there is no retail diversity scheme in place the applicant must provide a statement to the local planning authority that sets out how the development impacts on the criteria identified in subsection (3); and the local planning authority must consult the local community as defined in subsection (8) before coming to a decision on the application.”’.—(Jack Dromey.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 224, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 31
	 — 
	Change of use class for betting offices

‘The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 is amended as follows—
	(1) In article 3(6) (exclusion from use classes), at end add—
	“(n) as a betting office”.
	(2) In Part A (Use Classes) of the Schedule to the principal Order, in Class A2(c) omit “(including use as a betting office)”.
	(3) “Betting office” means premises, other than a track within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005, in respect of which a betting premises licence under Part 8 of that Act has effect.’— (Mr Lammy.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 221, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 90
	 — 
	Duty to co-operate in relation to planning of sustainable development

Amendments made: 144,page61,line4, after ‘authority,’, insert—
	‘(aa) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority,’.
	Amendment 145,page61,line7, after ‘(a)’, insert ‘, (aa)’.
	Amendment 146,page61,line8, after ‘(b)’, insert ‘or subsection (7)’.
	Amendment 147,page61,line11, after ‘person’, insert ‘—(a) ’.
	Amendment 148,page61,line13, at end insert
	‘, and
	(b) to have regard to activities of a person within subsection (7) so far as they are relevant to activities within subsection (3).’.
	Amendment 149,page61,line16, leave out from ‘documents,’ to end of line 17 and insert—
	‘(c) the preparation of marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the English inshore region, the English offshore region or any part of either of those regions,
	(d) activities that can reasonably be considered to prepare the way for activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) that are, or could be, contemplated, and
	(e) activities that support activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (c),’.
	Amendment 150,page61,line18, leave out from ‘to’ to end of line 20 and insert ‘a strategic matter.
	(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), each of the following is a “strategic matter”—
	(a) sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and
	(b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use—
	(i) is a county matter, or
	(ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.
	(3B) In subsection (3A)—
	“county matter” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (ignoring sub-paragraph 1(1)(i)),
	“planning area” means—
	(a) the area of—(b) a National Park,(c) the Broads,(d) the English inshore region, or(e) the English offshore region, and
	“two-tier area” means an area—
	(a) for which there is a county council and a district council, but(b) which is not in a National Park.’.—
	(Greg Clark.)
	Amendment proposed: 298,page61,line20, at end insert—
	‘(3A) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) must involve—
	(a) a local planning authority who is also a member of a Local Enterprise Partnership as approved by the Secretary of State; and
	(b) every other person within subsection (1).
	(3B) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) includes in particular—
	(a) the collection of evidence on issues defined in subsection (3C);
	(b) the preparation of policy guidance in relation to issues defined in subsection (3C); and
	(c) any other activities that support joint infrastructure planning.
	(3C) For the purpose of subsection (3B) the issues to be addressed include—
	(a) housing needs;
	(b) climate mitigation and adaptation and in particular flood risk;
	(c) economic development including retail needs;
	(d) energy needs and capacity;
	(e) biodiversity;
	(f) natural resource use including water management; and
	(g) transport.
	(3D) The person or bodies defined in subsection (1) must exercise the function of Joint Infrastructure Planning with the aim of achieving sustainable development and must act under guidance, including as to the meaning of sustainable development, as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.’.—(Jack Dromey.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 212, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 90
	 — 
	Duty to co-operate in relation to planning of sustainable development

Amendments made: 151,page61,line21, leave out ‘(2)’ and insert ‘(2)(a)’.
	Amendment 152,page61, leave out lines 23 to 30 and insert—
	‘(a) considering whether to consult on and prepare, and enter into and publish, agreements on joint approaches to the undertaking of activities within subsection (3), and
	(b) if the person is a local planning authority, considering whether to agree under section 28 to prepare joint local development documents.’.
	Amendment 153,page61,line36, at end insert—
	(7) A person is within this subsection if the person is a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description.’.
	Amendment 154,page61,line36, at end insert—
	(8) In this section—
	“the English inshore region” and “the English offshore region” have the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and
	“land” includes the waters within those regions and the bed and subsoil of those waters.’.
	Amendment 155,page61,line36, at end insert—
	‘(2) In section 16 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (applying Part 2 for purposes of a county council’s minerals and waste development scheme) after subsection (4) insert—
	(5) Also, subsection (3)(b) does not apply to section 33A(1)(a) and (aa).”’.
	Amendment 156,page61,line36, at end insert—
	‘(3) In section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (development plan documents: purpose of independent examination) after paragraph (b) insert “; and
	(c) whether the local planning authority complied with any duty imposed on the authority by section 33A in relation to its preparation.”’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 92
	 — 
	Adoption and withdrawal of development plan documents

Amendments made: 157,page62,line29, after ‘conclude’, insert ‘—
	(i) ’.
	Amendment 158,page62,line30, at end insert ‘and
	(ii) that the local planning authority complied with any duty imposed on the authority by section 33A in relation to the document’s preparation,’.—(Greg Clark.)

Schedule 9
	 — 
	Neighbourhood planning

Amendments made: 159,page288,line11, leave out ‘section 61G’ and insert ‘sections 61G and 61GA(1)’.
	Amendment 160,page289, leave out lines 20 to 30 and insert—
	‘(a) it is established expressly for either or both of the following purposes—
	(i) furthering the social, economic and environmental well-being of individuals living, or wanting to live, in an area that consists of or includes the neighbourhood area concerned,
	(ii) promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses in such an area,
	(b) its membership is open to—
	(i) individuals who live in the neighbourhood area concerned,
	(ii) individuals who work there (whether for businesses carried on there or otherwise), and
	(iii) individuals who are elected members of a county council, district council or London borough council any of whose area falls within the neighbourhood area concerned,
	(c) its membership includes a minimum of 21 individuals each of whom—
	(i) lives in the neighbourhood area concerned,
	(ii) works there (whether for a business carried on there or otherwise), or
	(iii) is an elected member of a county council, district council or London borough council any of whose area falls within the neighbourhood area concerned,
	(d) it has a written constitution, and
	(e) such other conditions as may be prescribed.’.
	Amendment 161,page289,line34, at end insert—
	‘(aa) must, in determining under subsection (5) whether to designate an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum for a neighbourhood area, have regard to the desirability of designating an organisation or body—
	(i) which has secured (or taken reasonable steps to attempt to secure) that its membership includes at least one individual falling within each of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (5)(b),
	(ii) whose membership is drawn from different places in the neighbourhood area concerned and from different sections of the community in that area, and
	(iii) whose purpose reflects (in general terms) the character of that area,’.
	Amendment 162,page290,line28, at end insert—
	‘(d) requiring a local planning authority to have regard (in addition, where relevant, to the matters set out in subsection (7)(aa)) to prescribed matters in determining whether to designate an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum.’.
	Amendment 163,page292,line2, at end insert—
	61GA Neighbourhood areas in areas of two or more local planning authorities
	(1) The power to designate an area as a neighbourhood area under section 61G is exercisable by two or more local planning authorities in England if the area falls within the areas of those authorities.
	(2) Regulations may make provision in connection with—
	(a) the operation of subsection (1), and
	(b) the operation of other provisions relating to neighbourhood development orders (including sections 61F and 61G) in cases where an area is designated as a neighbourhood area as a result of that subsection.
	(3) The regulations may in particular make provision—
	(a) modifying or supplementing the application of, or disapplying, any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2)(b),
	(b) applying (with or without modifications) any provision of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1972 (discharge of functions) in cases where the provision would not otherwise apply,
	(c) requiring local planning authorities to exercise, or not to exercise, any power conferred by any provision of that Part (including as applied by virtue of paragraph (b)), and
	(d) conferring powers or imposing duties on local planning authorities.’.
	Amendment 164,page293,line31, leave out ‘commences’ and insert ‘begins’.
	Amendment 165,page293,line41, leave out ‘commenced’ and insert ‘begun’.
	Amendment 166,page296,line11, at end insert—
	(ba) in subsection (5), for “to be adopted, approved or published (as the case may be)” substitute “to become part of the development plan”,’.
	Amendment 167,page297,line39, leave out ‘section 61G’ and insert ‘sections 61G and 61GA(1)’.
	Amendment 168,page298,line6, at end insert—
	“(1A) Only one neighbourhood development plan may be made for each neighbourhood area.’.
	Amendment 169,page298,line26, at end insert—
	‘(ab) section 61GA(2) and (3) (neighbourhood areas in areas of two or more local planning authorities),’.
	Amendment 170,page299,line2, at end insert—
	‘(d) paragraph 8 is to have effect as if sub-paragraphs (2)(aa) and (ab) and (2A) to (2C) were omitted.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Schedule 10
	 — 
	Process for making of neighbourhood development orders

Amendments made: 171,page302, leave out lines 27 and 28.
	Amendment 172,page302,line31, at end insert—
	“(7) The Secretary of State or another local planning authority may enter into arrangements with the authority for the provision of the services of any of their employees as examiners.
	(8) Those arrangements may include—
	(a) provision requiring payments to be made by the authority to the Secretary of State or other local planning authority, and
	(b) other provision in relation to those payments and other financial matters.’.
	Amendment 173,page302,line46, at end insert—
	(aa) having special regard to the desirability of preserving any listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, it is appropriate to make the order,
	(ab) having special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area, it is appropriate to make the order,’.
	Amendment 174,page303,line8, at end insert—
	“(2A) Sub-paragraph (2)(aa) applies in relation to a listed building only in so far as the order grants planning permission for development that affects the building or its setting.
	(2B) Sub-paragraph (2)(ab) applies in relation to a conservation area only in so far as the order grants planning permission for development in relation to buildings or other land in the area.
	(2C) In this paragraph “listed building” has the same meaning as in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Schedule 11
	 — 
	Neighbourhood planning: community right to build orders

Amendments made: 175,page312,line31, at end insert—
	“(6) Any reference in this Act or any other enactment to paragraph 12 of Schedule 4B includes a reference to that paragraph as modified in accordance with this paragraph.’.
	Amendment 176,page313,line10, leave out ‘by a community organisation’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 100
	 — 
	Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning

Amendments made: 177,page71,line15, leave out from ‘may’ to end of line 16 and insert ‘do anything that the Secretary of State considers appropriate—’.
	Amendment 178,page71,line20, leave out from ‘of’ to ‘anything’ in line 21 and insert ‘giving advice or assistance to anyone in relation to the making of proposals for such orders or plans or the doing of’.
	Amendment 179,page71,line22, at end insert—
	‘(1A) The things that the Secretary of State may do under this section include, in particular—
	(a) the provision of financial assistance (or the making of arrangements for its provision) to any body or other person, and
	(b) the making of agreements or other arrangements with any body or other person (under which payments may be made to the person).’.
	Amendment page71,line23, at end insert—
	‘(za) the reference to giving advice or assistance includes providing training or education,’.—(Greg Clark.)

Schedule 12
	 — 
	Neighbourhood planning: consequential amendments

Amendments made: 181,page313,line25, at end insert—
	1A In section 56(3) (time when development begun)—
	(a) after “sections” insert “61J(5) and (7),”, and
	(b) for “and 94” substitute “, 94 and 108(3E)(c)(i)”.’.
	Amendment 182, page315,line34, leave out ‘started’ and insert ‘begun’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 102
	 — 
	Consultation before applying for planning permission

Amendments made: 183,page72,line9, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘carry’ in line 10.
	Amendment 184,page104,line3, leave out Clause 119. —(Greg Clark.)

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Provision of advice and assistance in relation to community right to challenge

‘(1) The Secretary of State may do anything that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving advice or assistance to a relevant body in relation to—
	(a) the preparation of an expression of interest for submission to a relevant authority and its submission to a relevant authority,
	(b) participation in a procurement exercise carried out by a relevant authority in response to an expression of interest, or
	(c) the provision of a relevant service on behalf of a relevant authority following such a procurement exercise.
	(2) The Secretary of State may do anything that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving advice or assistance about the operation of this Chapter to a body or person other than a relevant body.
	(3) The things that the Secretary of State may do under this section include, in particular—
	(a) the provision of financial assistance to a relevant body;
	(b) the making of arrangements with a body or person (whether or not a relevant body), including arrangements for things that may be done by the Secretary of State under this section to be done by that body or person;
	(c) the provision of financial assistance to a body or person other than a relevant body in connection with arrangements under paragraph (b).
	(4) In this section references to a relevant body include a body that the Secretary of State considers was formed wholly or partly by employees or former employees of the relevant authority for the purposes of, or for purposes including—
	(a) participating in a procurement exercise carried out by the authority, or
	(b) providing a relevant service on the authority’s behalf.
	(5) In this section—
	(a) the reference to giving advice or assistance includes providing training or education, and
	(b) any reference to the provision of financial assistance is to the provision of financial assistance by any means (including the making of a loan and the giving of a guarantee or indemnity).’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17
	 — 
	Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in England

‘(1) The Secretary of State may do anything that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving advice or assistance—
	(a) to anyone in relation to doing any of the following—
	(i) taking steps under or for purposes of provision contained in, or made under, this Chapter so far as applying in relation to England, or
	(ii) preparing to, or considering or deciding whether to, take steps within sub-paragraph (i), or
	(b) to a community interest group in relation to doing any of the following—
	(i) bidding for, or acquiring, land in England that is included in a local authority’s list of assets of community value,
	(ii) preparing to, or considering or deciding whether or how to, bid for or acquire land within sub-paragraph (i), or
	(iii) preparing to, or considering or deciding whether or how to, bring land within sub-paragraph (i) into effective use.
	(2) The things that the Secretary of State may do under this section include, in particular—
	(a) the provision of financial assistance to any body or other person;
	(b) the making of arrangements with a body or other person, including arrangements for things that may be done by the Secretary of State under this section to be done by that body or other person.
	(3) In this section—
	(a) the reference to giving advice or assistance includes providing training or education,
	(b) “community interest group” means a person who is a community interest group for the purposes of section79(3) as a result of regulations made under section79(6) by the Secretary of State, and
	(c) the reference to the provision of financial assistance is to the provision of financial assistance by any means (including the making of a loan and the giving of a guarantee or indemnity).’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Brought up , and a dded to the Bill.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in Wales

‘(1) The Welsh Ministers may do anything that they consider appropriate for the purpose of giving advice or assistance—
	(a) to anyone in relation to doing any of the following—
	(i) taking steps under or for purposes of provision contained in, or made under, this Chapter so far as applying in relation to Wales, or
	(ii) preparing to, or considering or deciding whether to, take steps within sub-paragraph (i), or
	(b) to a community interest group in relation to doing any of the following—
	(i) bidding for, or acquiring, land in Wales that is included in a local authority’s list of assets of community value,
	(ii) preparing to, or considering or deciding whether or how to, bid for or acquire land within sub-paragraph (i), or
	(iii) preparing to, or considering or deciding whether or how to, bring land within sub-paragraph (i) into effective use.
	(2) The things that the Welsh Ministers may do under this section include, in particular—
	(a) the provision of financial assistance to any body or other person;
	(b) the making of arrangements with a body or other person, including arrangements for things that may be done by the Welsh Ministers under this section to be done by that body or other person.
	(3) In this section—
	(a) the reference to giving advice or assistance includes providing training or education,
	(b) “community interest group” means a person who is a community interest group for the purposes of section79(3) as a result of regulations made under section79(6) by the Welsh Ministers, and
	(c) the reference to the provision of financial assistance is to the provision of financial assistance by any means (including the making of a loan and the giving of a guarantee or indemnity).’.—(Greg Clark.)
	Brought up ,  and added to the Bill.

Clause 44
	 — 
	Ground for determination

Amendment made: 185,page31,line25, leave out subsection (5).—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 55
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment made: 186,page36,line45, at end insert—
	‘(3) For the purposes of this Chapter the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are to be treated as falling within the ward of Farrington Without in the City of London (and so are to be treated as falling within the area of the Common Council of the City of London for those purposes).’.—(Greg Clark.)

Schedule 5
	 — 
	New Chapter 4ZA of Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992

Amendments made: 187,page254,line10, after ‘falls’, insert ‘wholly or partly’.
	Amendment 188,page264,line10, after second ‘for’, insert ‘the part of’.
	Amendment 189,page264,line10, after ‘area’, insert ‘comprising the authority’s area’.
	Amendment 190,page37,line7, leave out Clause 57.—(Greg Clark.)
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Employment and Support Allowance (Work-Related Activity) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 (Permanent Effect) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 28 March, be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Landfill Tax

That the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 1017), dated 31 March 2011, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Care of Cathedrals Measure

That the Care of Cathedrals Measure (HC 868), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—(Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Ecclesiastical Fees (amendment) Measure

That the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure (HC 870), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—(Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Mission and Pastoral Measure

That the Mission and Pastoral Measure (HC 869), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—(Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.

Mark Francois: Amen.

Mr Speaker: The senior Whip on duty says amen, which will doubtless be noted on the record.

PUBLIC HEALTH OBSERVATORIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the very important subject of the future of our public health observatories, which are an integral part of the national health service. They are responsible for public health intelligence work—collecting the evidence base and directing how different agencies work to improve public health. It might be useful if I give a definition of public health. The best definition I have been able to find is one from the World Health Organisation’s expert committee on public health administration that was published as long ago as 1952. It defined public health as
	“the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health and efficiency through organized community efforts for the sanitation of the environment, the control of communicable infections, the education of the individual in personal hygiene, the organization of medical and nursing services for early diagnosis and preventive treatment of disease, and the development of the social machinery to ensure for every individual a standard of living adequate for the maintenance of health, so organizing these benefits as to enable every citizen to realize his birthright of health and longevity.”
	The Association of Public Health Observatories represents and co-ordinates a network of 12 public health observatories in Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That body brings together joint public health intelligence work from all its organisations across the United Kingdom and Ireland and also works in collaboration with its counterparts across Europe. Without that range of high-quality and trustworthy knowledge, expertise and support from public health observatories, much of the work carried out by practitioners and, indeed, local authorities, policy makers and the wider community, would be carried out in the dark. That would, without doubt, result in a less focused and less effective service delivery. All that makes public health observatories central to both local and central Government health policy and decision making.
	Public health observatories were set up to monitor the state of the public’s health and the causes of poor health and health inequalities, with the information being used by a range of organisations involved in providing health care, including the NHS. The White Paper, “Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation”, which was published by the Department of Health in 1999, proposed the establishment of the public health observatories that were then set up in 2000 by the Labour Government. The Association of Public Health Observatories was also established in 2000. That umbrella group provides a link between regional public health observatories and national arrangements. It comprises representatives from all the regional public health observatories, the Department of Health and other partners, and one concern that I wish to raise is the fact that its funding has been removed this year.
	I hope that the Minister will accept that improving the knowledge and evidence base behind health care was a key element of the previous Government’s policy and was instrumental in making progress in tackling health inequalities. The changes outlined by the Health Secretary in the Health and Social Care Bill move us
	away from a co-ordinated health service towards a competition-based health service. The public health White Paper, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People”, published on 30 November 2010, set out a new structure for public health in England. Its aim was to shift the balance of responsibility away from central Government to local authorities. There has also been much greater emphasis on the need for people to be supported in taking more responsibility for their own health—the so-called nudge philosophy.
	There are many public health issues that I would like to discuss but unfortunately do not have time to develop tonight because of the shortage of time. I want to press on and put some points to the Minister, particularly about public health observatories, and I hope she will have the opportunity to respond to them.

Jim Shannon: Prevention is key to having a healthier nation and perhaps this issue should be reconsidered in the NHS review, as it might help to improve the nation’s health.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful for that and I agree. It is fundamental to have a solid evidence base on which to plan health interventions.
	As I mentioned, the Government propose in the Health and Social Care Bill to transfer health improvement functions from PCTs to local authorities, and to create a new body, Public Health England, to be rooted in the Department of Health. Public Health England is expected to take on full responsibility for overseeing the local delivery of public health services, as well as dealing with national issues such as flu pandemics and other population-wide health threats from next year. The majority of public health services will be commissioned by local authorities. However, the revolution under way in the NHS is just as important to the future of public health in England.
	The Bill, which proposes the abolition of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, raises more questions than it answers. The responsibilities currently held by PCTs could be moved to local authorities, to the Department of Health, to commissioning consortia or to the NHS commissioning board. How the important work of public health observatories will be safeguarded for the future is still unknown. The decision to divide public health responsibilities between the Department of Health and local authorities will fragment any cohesive approach to tackling health inequalities. Whether new commissioning consortia will carry out some functions is at this stage unknown.
	There are further concerns about whether Public Health England should be outside the Department of Health to protect its independence. If it was placed within the NHS, perhaps as a special health authority, surely that would better meet the Government’s own aim, often stated, of liberating the NHS from political control.
	The Minister will be aware of the response to the White Paper by the public health observatories in March 2011. That response calls for a sub-national level of organisation of Public Health England to be created, with sufficient critical mass to ensure that the outputs of Public Health England continue to be valuable locally as well as nationally. There are many examples where that is the case, not least in my own region, the north-east,
	where the public health observatory has done excellent work on addressing inequalities that affect people with mental health issues and inhibit their ability to access services. The lessons of that can be rolled out across the country.
	The important work of the observatories over the past decade has been self-evident. On 24 June 2008 the health profiles for every local authority and region across England were published jointly by the Department of Health and the Association of Public Health Observatories, an organisation which, as I mentioned earlier, has lost all its funding. Using key health indicators, public health observatories were able to pinpoint national health statistics at a local level, providing valuable information to address health inequalities and improve health outcomes.
	As the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), now the Deputy Speaker, noted, the importance of those statistics was
	“to target local health hotspots with effective measures to make a real difference.”
	In my constituency, Healthworks, an excellent clinic established in Paradise lane in Easington and opened by Sir Derek Wanless, is a prime example of how that information collected by the observatories was used to great effect to target the areas in greatest need.
	The Association of Public Health Observatories, with the Department of Health, also published a health inequalities intervention toolkit to enable every English local authority to model the effect of high-impact interventions on the life expectancy gap. As far back as 1977, the Department of Health’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Douglas Black, was asked to produce a report on the extent of health inequalities in the UK and how best to address them. The report proved conclusively that death rates for many diseases were higher among those in the lower social classes. It acknowledged that the NHS could do much more to address the situation. It called for increases in child benefit, improvements in maternity allowances, more pre-school education, an expansion of child care and better housing. A further report was subsequently produced by Professor Peter Townsend. Indeed, only last week I attended a seminar, in which the principal speaker was Sir Michael Marmot, on the impact of cold homes on health outcomes. The report indicated that the cost to the NHS of illness resulting from poorly insulated houses and cold homes is £2 million a year.

Ian Lavery: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Marmot report—

Anne Milton: Marmite?

Ian Lavery: The Marmot review, published in 2010, stated clearly, as one of its nine objectives:
	“Economic growth is not the most important measure of our country’s success. The fair distribution of health, well-being and sustainability are important social goals. Tackling social inequalities in health and tackling climate change must go together.”

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that important and contemporary report. I completely agree with Sir Michael Marmot’s findings—
	and Marmite is also very good for public health. Building on the work of Professor Townsend and Sir Douglas Black, Sir Michael Marmot states as one of his recommendations:
	“Action taken to reduce health inequalities will benefit society in many ways. It will have economic benefits in reducing losses from illness associated with health inequalities. These currently account for productivity losses, reduced tax revenue, higher welfare payments and increased treatment costs.”
	I mentioned the economic benefits of insulating houses. It would be a real step forward if the Marmot report’s six principal recommendations were incorporated and linked to quality standards in the public health outcomes framework that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is working on.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend mentioned the Black report, the Townsend report and the Marmot report, and I wonder whether Government officials and Ministers might in due course come to regard the Marmot review a little like Marmite—either loving it or hating it—in respect of its findings, because it is clear that the need to monitor what is going on in public health across the regions of England, such as the north-east, is vital for future policy developments.

Grahame Morris: Absolutely. That is a critical issue. In some respects, the Government have taken their eye off the ball. I will develop that point a little later and would like the Minister to respond to it.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a clear and present danger of a reversal of health inequalities, which would be exacerbated by decisions taken elsewhere across Government. It is such an important issue, and one that I have long campaigned on. As someone who has worked in the health service and served on a local authority, I feel very passionately about it.
	Remarkably, we are now considering proposals that risk losing our greatest weapon in tackling public health inequalities: evidence-based health intelligence. More recently, as my hon. Friends have noted, the Marmot review has restated the link between socio-economic factors and health, which are known as the wider determinants of health. One of the more serious threats to the future of public health intelligence is its future funding under the new arrangements proposed by the Government. In my view, the Secretary of State has shown little interest in the functioning of public health intelligence under these proposed structures.
	Public health policies must take account of local circumstances as health inequalities remain stark, particularly in areas such as my constituency. For example, smoking-related deaths vary greatly across different parts of the country. Public health intelligence must drive public health practice. I appreciate that public health observatories self-generate revenue, alongside their Department of Health grant and moneys from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. They also have opportunities to gain commissions from universities and charitable organisations, but it would be extremely risky to proceed down the Government’s proposed route without the certainty of their core Department of Health funding, which I understand is to be reduced by 30% this year.
	Staff and people associated with the service have reported to me that valued employees are already being laid off at the north-west public health observatory, which is based at Liverpool John Moores university, and there is a similar situation at the north-east public health observatory. Local authorities commission the majority of public health services from a ring-fenced budget. What assurances can the Minister give me on safeguarding through this hiatus—this period of transition—and for the long term under the new arrangements?
	I also thank David Kidney, the former Member for Stafford, who is now head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, for his assistance in preparing for this debate. The institute has stated its view that Public Health England must be established with a degree of independence, a point I made earlier, and with the ability to oversee arrangements for collecting, analysing and disseminating valuable data for public health services.
	In short, it is now time for Ministers to provide concrete assurances that the role of public health intelligence, the collection of the evidence base and, in particular, public health observatories will be safeguarded for the future.

Diane Abbott: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There are just over 10 minutes left, so is it by agreement that I call the hon. Member?

Grahame Morris: indicated assent.

Dawn Primarolo: I call Diane Abbott.

Diane Abbott: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on raising this very important issue on the Adjournment. I, like everyone else in the Chamber, want to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the important points that he has made.
	One reason why my hon. Friend’s debate is so important is that, amid all the public anger about the health service reforms, the effects on public health have not received the attention that they should have. Speaking as an east end MP, I must say that the information that the public health observatories produce is important in ensuring that whoever commissions services commissions for the population, not just for GPs’ lists. I live in an area where many communities are either not registered with a GP or in other ways socially excluded.
	My hon. Friend has raised the important issue of health inequality, and it is easy to talk about that in the abstract, but we should reflect on the fact that this is 2011, because the life expectancy of someone in the richest part of Glasgow is 10 years more than that of someone in the poorest part, and if we take the Jubilee line tonight we will find that the people living at every stop from Westminster going east until Canning Town lose a few years in life expectancy. This is a very real issue and an indictment of our society. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising it, and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

Anne Milton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for raising the subject of public health observatories, and I should probably declare an interest, because my husband is a public health physician. Anybody who has an interest in public health knows how important the observatories are, but time is very short, and I will not get to all the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
	The public health observatories have been around for more than a decade, and they produce a whole series of high-quality data. Annual health profiles, for instance, of local areas allow for those comparisons that are so important, and there is no doubt about the importance of reducing inequalities. The reports of Sir Douglas Black, Peter Townsend and more recently Sir Michael Marmot are all key documents.
	It is important to remember that over the past decade or so health inequalities have become worse, but I point no fingers, because it is testament to the fact that it is extremely difficult to reduce inequalities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned several issues that contribute to that. There are a range of factors, not least changing people’s behaviour, which is not easy. The Government’s contribution of £12 million to the observatories is testament to how important it is that we get good intelligence. He will have read the public health White Paper, in which he will see our commitment to this. For the first time, we will ring-fence funds for public health.
	The movement of public health into local authorities has been fairly widely welcomed. There are transitional arrangements that we need to get right, but it will be based on a direct line of sight from the Department of Health, as we need to bring some things together. We need clear responsibilities and a clear outcomes framework to ensure that local authorities give us what we need, with all that based on good and sound intelligence. Although the public health observatories have done a very good job, there are some areas—for instance, changing behaviour—where the intelligence is not good and we have not collected it together.
	We want the data and evidence from the observatories to be used to improve the health of everybody, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, income or sexuality. The public health White Paper sets out a clear life-course approach to that. It is impossible to make these changes without good intelligence and information. Despite the wealth of data, the evidence of what works is not necessarily being used as effectively as it could be, nor is it as widely available as it could be, and it remains only part of the information that we need. In any system where there are numerous stand-alone organisations, there are always dangers of overlap and duplication, and we want to eliminate that as much as possible. In short, we want to move from a system where we have a complex web of information functions performed by multiple organisations towards a system where that information is fully integrated into the public health system.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not about one Department—the Department of Health—doing it alone, but about public health being absolutely everybody’s business. The difference can be made from the top to the bottom in Government and right across the different Departments; it is an issue for us all. If we are truly to
	make inroads into these very persistent, difficult to move inequalities in health, we have to approach it in that way. There is no question of losing the main functions of the observatories; on the contrary, in fact. By transferring those functions to Public Health England, we will improve how they are used.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have consulted for several months on the new public health system, and we are continuing to listen. It is very interesting to see what we are getting back, with a warm welcome for many of the changes. There are always anxieties about difficult periods of transition. We have convened a working group on information and intelligence for public health, which is chaired by the regional director of public health for South Central Strategic Health Authority, Professor John Newton. It has representatives from the Department, the Health Protection Agency, the public health observatories and the cancer registries, and it is meeting fortnightly to develop our approach to public health information and intelligence. This is an opportunity to get it absolutely right.
	The future of the observatories is being very closely managed, and that includes their locations. Department of Health funding for the observatories has been agreed for 2011-12. Although there has been a reduction in the core contribution for each observatory, the Department of Health funding set aside as the core public health information and intelligence budget remains similar to previous years, and that will be supplemented by additional Department of Health grants, so overall funding will be about the same.
	I should like to thank the north-east public health observatory for its contributions, including in relation to the national library for public health and the learning disability specialist observatory. Its strong strategic relationship with the academic sector through its host, the university of Durham, has been particularly beneficial. Officials in the Department are in regular contact with both institutions so that financial and other pressures are addressed as they arise. Like most of its counterparts, the north-east observatory receives income from the Department of Health, the NHS and others. I understand that it currently has a working capital of about £1 million, which is not insignificant.
	The university’s human resources policies require it to alert staff at least six months before any changes in employment, which is important for staff at this uncertain time. We are making sure that the university is aware of the ongoing need for the observatory’s work, and hence its expert staff. It is important that we do not see any loss in that.
	We are lucky in this country to have such a rich source of expertise. We must ensure that we maximise the benefit of that expertise, knowledge and intelligence. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for raising this issue and giving me an opportunity to say how much we value the work of observatories. Their functions remain indispensable, but they must adapt to the new system. We want to streamline the system and do what we set out to do, which is to reduce inequalities in health. We will base any action we take on sound evidence.

Diane Abbott: Will the Minister explain how, under the proposed system, we can make the free-standing GP commissioning consortia, some of which may be managed
	by private-sector organisations, pay attention in their commissioning decisions to the issues raised by public health observatories and others? It seems to me that without PCTs and other regional structures, it will be perfectly possible for the commissioning structures to ignore what public health observatories say.

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. In fact, we inherited that system. Time and time again, budgets for public health have been raided to meet short-term commitments. One point of ring-fencing public health funding is to ensure that public health is central to the work that the local authority does and that it informs the commissioning arrangements in a local area. It is not good having just one area looking at public health. We are ring-fencing that money and will have a clear outcomes framework that sets out what the Government expect.
	We will ensure that the consortia have regard to the public’s health. When we say “public health” it can sound a bit jargonistic. We are talking about the public’s health and about reducing the inequalities that have dogged society up to now and which successive Governments have failed to reduce. We have to do something different. We are moving from a system in which public health got sidelined and in which the work of public health observatories, although valuable, was not mainstream, to a system where that work is brought into the mainstream and into the direct line of sight. All those who make commissioning decisions and all local authorities should hear the clear message from Government that public health is everybody’s business.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.